Case Law Details
Shri Hitender Kumar Mehta Vs Shri Rajiv Bajaj (ICSI Discipilinar Committee)
The Disciplinary Committee, after considering all material on record, the provisions of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, the Regulations and Rules made there under; the legal opinions sought in the matter, the prima-facie opinion, Further Investigation Reports of the Director (Discipline) and totality of the facts and circumstances of the matter, held that Respondent has failed to establish that he was not enrolled as an Advocate on the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana on 26th August, 1997 i.e. the date on which he made the declaration in Form D. Further, the Respondent has failed to establish that his declaration in Form D about non-enrolment as an Advocate is true and correct.
Accordingly, the Disciplinary Committee after considering all the material available on record, the written and oral submissions of parties and in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments adduced before it by both the parties, is of the opinion that Respondent is GUILTY of Professional Misconduct under clause (1) and clause (3) of Part-II of the Second Schedule to the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 for making false declaration in his application in Form ‘D’ and violation of the Regulation 168 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982.
The Disciplinary Committee further decided to afford an opportunity of being heard to the Respondent before passing any order under Section 21B (3) of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 in terms of sub-rule (1) of rule 19 of the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
