The Bombay High Court (HC) chaired by Justice Valmiki SA Menezes and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur upheld the order of reprimand serves as the end of justice and will be proportionate to the acts of misconduct of which the respondent has been held guilty.
It was added that the findings do not suffer from any perversity or non consideration of the record before the Disciplinary Committee.
This is a reference case made to the Court under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (CA Act) by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, for necessary orders to be passed in terms of auction 21(6) thereof.
The complaint alleges that the respondent misled club members about his ownership of M/s. D.S. Desai and Company Limited by claiming that his company provided specialised services to a number of corporate clients whose names were listed in the aforementioned letter while soliciting votes for his candidature for the position of Officer Bearer of the Executive Committee of the said club.
Furthermore, the respondent claimed in the aforementioned letter that the firm of which he claimed to be the proprietor had saved the club a significant amount of tax by utilising his connections with the income tax department, in addition to advertising the names of the companies that he claimed to be his clients..
The respondent, filed the reply before the Institute and claimed that the complaint was filed only due to rivalry between the respondent and the complainant, as the complainant had also offered his candidature to the Executive Committee of the club.
The bench observed that the actual proprietor was his late father, and on his demise, his mother, Mrs.Shalini D. Desai was the Proprietor and not the respondent.
Additionally, the respondent misled the public by claiming to be the owner of the company M/s. D.S. Desai and Company and also tried to mislead the club’s members as a result, violating Section 22 read with Section 21 of the CA Act and engaging in “other misconduct.”
On considering the material before it, the Executive Committee Council found respondent guilty of professional misconduct and decided to take action against the respondent and to recommend to the High Court that the respondent be reprimanded. Hence, a reference was made to the High Court.
The procedure for enquiries into Institute member misbehaviour is outlined in Section 21 of CA Act. In accordance with the section, if the council determines that professional misconduct occurred, it may, after giving the member a chance to be heard, reprimand the member or strike the member’s name from the Register for a period of time not to exceed five years.
The judges noted that the council had acted within the bounds of the law in light of section 21 of the CA Act. Moreover, it conducted the investigation in accordance with the principles of natural justice; both the complainant and the respondent had a chance to present their cases and cross-examine one another
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
