• Jan
  • 11
  • 2008

C.A.- Think thrice before you issue a Certificate

[2007] 164 taxman 410 (delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Dayal Singh

FACTS

The respondent was a chartered accountant. The Superintendent of Police, CBI filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent had given a false certificate to firm `T’, on the basis of which the party got released certain term loan from the bank and, therefore, the respondent had committed professional misconduct under clauses (5) and (7) of the Part I of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Disciplinary Committee of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India after hearing the respondent’s representation came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of `other misconduct’ within the meaning of section 22, read with section 21(5). The council, therefore, recommended to the High Court that the respondent’s name should be removed from the register of members for a period of one month.  

On reference :

HELD

The officers of the bank completed all paper formalities, perhaps at the behest of the respondent or at least on the basis of his certificate for disbursement of the loan. The activity of the respondent in issuing such a vague certificate with the intention of persuading the bank to grant his client a loan amounted to `other misconduct’ within the meaning of the Act, read with the regulations framed thereunder. [Para 12]

The lack of responsibility displayed by the respondent clearly showed that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of a chartered accountant and, therefore, the council rightly recommended removal of his name from the register of members for a period of one month. [Para 13]

There has to be some degree of integrity and probity which is expected of a chartered accountant who is regularly concerned with the financial transactions and on the basis of whose recommendations and certificates financial institutions such as banks disburse loans or enter into other financial transactions. [Para 14]

Under the circumstances, the punishment that had been awarded to the respondent was not unduly harsh. The recommendation of the council, to the effect that the name of the respondent should be removed from the register of members for a period of one month, was to be accepted. [Para 15]


Sandeep Kanoi+

Leave a Reply