Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Delhi HC Suspends CA for One Year in SEBI Stock-Invest Manipulation Case

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 843
Case Name
Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants Vs Kishan Gupta And Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants Vs Kishan Gupta And Anr. (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court held that reference by Council of ICAI for suspension of name of CA from register of Member for period of one year is accepted since professional misconduct of CA i.e. manipulation of public issue and ante-dated stock-investment duly established.

Facts- The SEBI wrote a letter dated 10.06.1999 to the petitioner pointing out certain irregularities in the public issue of BFSL. The respondent no. 1 herein is a qualified Chartered Accountant and member of the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India and also the Chairman and whole-time Director of BFSL. The petitioner after perusing the letter as received from SEBI wherein irregularities in public issue of BFSL were pointed out, requested the respondent no. 1 to offer a clarification vide letters dated 02.02.2000 and 11.10.2000. However, no clarification received from the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner was constrained to treat the letter from SEBI as “information” against the respondent no. 1 for “other misconduct” falling u/s. 22 r.w.s. 21 of the Act.

Thereafter, the petitioner by way of an information letter dated 15.12.2005 reiterated the aforesaid position wherein the respondent no. 1 was charged for “other misconduct” falling u/s. 22 r.w.s. 21 of the Act and directed the respondent no. 1 to submit his written statement in his defence as per Regulation 12(7) read with Regulation 13 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. The petitioner after having considered the information letter dated 15.12.2005 noted that despite various reminders, respondent no. 1 did not submit his written reply and thus, non-submission of any clarification by the respondent no. 1 clearly demonstrates the admission of the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 12(11) of the Regulations passed a prima facie opinion that the respondent no. 1 was guilty of professional/other misconduct and further referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the petitioner for an enquiry.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.