Facts of the Case

The dispute arose out of the elections to the Managing Committee of the Satara Branch of the Western India Regional Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for the term 2016–2019. The Respondent, CA Sarang Satish Kolhapure, was appointed as the Returning Officer. As per the election schedule, the last date for receipt of nominations was 25 January 2016 up to 6:00 PM and the last date for withdrawal of nominations was 29 January 2016 up to 6:00 PM. Fourteen valid nominations were received.

The Complainant, CA Makarand Narayan Joshi, alleged that the Respondent failed to conduct the election in a fair and transparent manner and acted under the influence of certain candidates. It was alleged that the Respondent contacted candidates over phone and pressurised them to withdraw their nominations and that withdrawal forms were emailed to candidates after the prescribed deadline. It was further alleged that despite absence of proper withdrawals, the Respondent displayed a final list of six candidates, equal to the number of available seats, and declared them elected unopposed.

Subsequently, the Institute examined the election process, and upon opening the envelope containing withdrawal forms in a meeting held on 26 March 2016, it was found that one candidate had not submitted any withdrawal form. The election was declared invalid and fresh elections were held on 20 May 2016.

Issues Involved

Whether the Respondent, in his capacity as Returning Officer, failed to conduct the branch elections in a fair and transparent manner by accepting withdrawals of nominations without proper written confirmation, and whether such conduct amounted to “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Complainant contended that the Respondent improperly accepted withdrawals beyond the prescribed deadline, excluded valid candidates from the final list, and declared candidates elected unopposed, thereby manipulating the election process and bringing disrepute to the Institute. It was argued that the subsequent annulment of the election itself established lack of due diligence and transparency on the part of the Respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondent submitted that there were no specific statutory provisions or binding guidelines under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 or Council Directions prescribing the mode of withdrawal of nominations in branch elections. He stated that both concerned candidates were residing outside Satara and had clearly communicated their intention to withdraw over telephone before the deadline. The Respondent asserted that such communication was made on speakerphone in the presence of the Branch In-Charge and other members, ensuring transparency. He further contended that his actions were taken in good faith, without malafide intent, and in the best interest of the Institute to avoid unnecessary delay and expenditure.

Court / Authority Order and Findings

The Board of Discipline examined the submissions, documentary evidence and depositions of witnesses. The Board noted that the two candidates whose withdrawals were in question appeared as witnesses and confirmed on oath that they had communicated their decision to withdraw over the phone to the Returning Officer before the deadline. The Branch In-Charge also confirmed that the telephonic communication took place on speakerphone in her presence. Both witnesses stated that they had no grievance against the Respondent and that their withdrawals were voluntary.

The Board further observed that there was no clear statutory provision prescribing the manner of withdrawal of nominations in branch elections. In such circumstances, the Respondent’s actions, based on telephonic confirmations received before the deadline, could not be said to be guided by malafide intent. The Board also noted with displeasure that the Complainant, being a Chartered Accountant, had incorrectly cited a non-existent clause in the complaint form, reflecting lack of due care.

On an overall appreciation of facts, evidence and absence of prescribed procedure, the Board held that the Respondent acted in good faith and that there was no evidence that his conduct brought disrepute to the profession or the Institute.

Important Clarification

The Board clarified that in the absence of any statutory or regulatory prescription governing the manner of withdrawal of nominations in branch elections, actions taken by a Returning Officer in good faith based on credible communication cannot be treated as professional misconduct. Allegations of lack of transparency must be supported by clear evidence of malafide intent.

Final Outcome

The ICAI Board of Discipline held CA Sarang Satish Kolhapure (M. No. 127080) Not Guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. By order dated 08 December 2025, the Board directed closure of the case under Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.

Source Link- https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768892301_CA.MakarandNarayanJoshiM.No.107605vsCA.SarangSatishKolhapure.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.