Case Law Details
Yogendra N. Thakkar Vs Board of Discipline (Appellate Authority)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant before this Authority against the Order dated 10th February, 2018 passed by the Board of Discipline (BOD) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Institute) wherein, the Appellant was held guilty of Professional Misconduct under item (11) of Part–I and Other Misconduct under Item (2) of Part–IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, (“the Act”) and the order passed by the Board of Discipline under section 21A (3) of the Act whereby the Appellant was awarded punishment of removal of his name from the Register of Members for a period of one month and also imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) upon him.”
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Mr. Vinay D. Balse, the Respondent No.2 herein, has filed a complaint against the Appellant alleging professional and other misconduct under various clauses of First Schedule vide his complaint in Form-I dated 22nd July, 2014. In his complaint, Mr.Vinay D. Balse alleged that the Appellant being a Chartered Accountant in practice was engaged in other business other than the profession of Chartered Accountant without the permission of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India so to engage and further as a result of several of his actions against N M Raiji & Co (NMR), the CA Firm in which the Appellant, the Respondent–2 herein and some others are partners, brought disrepute to the profession and the Institute.
3. As is evident from the report of the Board of Discipline, the Appellant was held guilty of professional misconduct under Item (11) of Part-I of the First Schedule on account of his engagement as a Director of Mriyog Investments Private Limited, a company which was promoted by him along with his family members in which he was holding 90% of the equity, without taking the permission of the Council and was further held guilty of other misconduct under Item (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Act for his actions against NMR and against his other partners in the firm, which brought disrepute to the profession and institute at large.
4. The Appellant has assailed the order of the Board of Discipline on various grounds of appeal as stated in Para (6) of his appeal, which are reproduced below:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
