PRADEEP KUMAR LODHA Vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
LAWS(CAL)-1996-8-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 29,1996

PRADEEP KUMAR LODHA Appellant
VERSUS
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

D K BANSAL C A M NO 070392 VS. BOARD OF DISCIPLINE I C A I AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-119] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE - (1.)This appeal under Section 22 A of the Chartered Accountants Act, l949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the decision taken at the 178th meeting of the Council of the Institute of The Chartered Accountants of India held on 6th, 7th and 8th Dec. 1995, and communicated by its letter dated Feb. 16, 1995, removing the name of the appellant from the Register of the members for a period of one month.
(2.)The appellant before us is a practicising Chartered Accountant and carrying on his profession under the name and style of Kumar Pradeep and Company having his registered office at 62/1/A, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The appellant alleges that one Shri Shayam Sunder Gupta being satisfied with his professional work was anxious to propose his name for being appointed as Auditor in some of the companies in which the said Shyam Sundar Gupta held shares. It is further alleged that Shyam Sundar Gupta approached the appellant to ascertain as to whether the appellant had any objection to his proposal and whether the appellant was eligible to be appointed as in Auditor of Public Limited Company in view of the limits laid down in Section 224 (1B) of the Companies Act 1956, to which the appellant told Shri Shyam Sundar Gupta that he had no objection to his proposal and since the appellant was an Auditor of only two companies as against the limit of twenty companies, the appellant wrote to him that he had no objection for being appointed as an Auditor to eighteen other companies. It is also alleged that the aforesaid Shri Shyam Sundar Gupta on his own sent proposals to several companies in his capacity as sharesholders thereto proposing the name of the appellant for being appointed as an Auditor under Section 224 read with Section 225 of the Companies Act. It is stated that on receipt of the proposal of Shri Shyam Sundar Gupta, several companies wanted formal certificate from the appellant to that effect and on receipt of the aforesaid communication, the appellant sent necessary certificates in terms of the requirement of provisions of Section 224 of the Companies Act. It appears that one of the companies made a complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India enclosing therewith the letters written by the appellant. It further appears that the Institute of 4 Chartered Accountants of India took cognizance of the complaint and found the letters sent by the appellant to Shri Shyam Sundar Gupta and to various companies being either directly or indirectly in violation of clause (6) of Part I of the First Schedule of the Act read with Section 21(4) and Section 22 of the Act. It was held by the Council that in sum and substance the appellant by writing letters to Shri Shyam Sundar Gupta and to various companies had solicited clients for professional work. In such circumstances, the Council forwarded the aforesaid complaint to the appellant calling for his reply to the said complaint dated Aug. 28, 1989, made by Messrs Warren Tea Ltd.
(3.)The appellant submitted his written statement wherein he denied having violated the provisions of clause (6) of Part 1 of the First Schedule of the Act. Subsequently, the complaint and the entire records, i.e. written statement filed by the appellant were considered by the Council at its meeting held on Sept. 3 and 16, 1990. The Council in the said meeting was of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of professional and / or other misconduct and as such decided to cause an enquiry to be made in the matter by the disciplinary committee. The Disciplinary Committee after giving opportunity to the appellant submitted its report before the Council on 12th , January, 1993 with its opinion that the appellant was guilty of indirect solicitation of professional work under clause (6) of Part I of the First Schedule of the Act read with Section 21 and 22 of the Act. The report of the Disciplinary Committee was sent to the parties who were asked to send their reply and also to appear before the Council either personally or through a member of the Institute duly authorised to make oral submission before the Council. The appellant submitted a written reply before the Council. The Council in its meeting gave its finding that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and further the appellant will be proceeded under Section 21(4) of the Act. Subsequently on August 21, 1995, the Council issued a show cause notice in the matter of complaint made by V.K. Goenka, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Warren Tea Limited, Calcutta, calling upon the appellant to appear before the Council in the office of the Institute. Pursuant to the said notice, the appellant appeared and filed a written statement before the Council. The Council by the order impugned directed for the removal of the name of the appellant from the Registrar of the Members for a period of one month. It is in this way the appeal has come up before us.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.