The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has reprimanded CA. Ravi Hareshkumar Kariya for professional misconduct. The case was brought by Dr. Avais Patwegar, Deputy Registrar of Companies. The committee found CA. Kariya guilty of misconduct under Item (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, related to providing an incorrect declaration while certifying Form-INC 32. During the hearing, CA. Kariya stated he relied on notarized copies and did not personally visit the registered office premises of the company, verifying the address through documentation instead. He argued that the declaration permitted the use of certified copies and referred to other cases where similar actions did not result in a guilty verdict. However, the committee determined that comparing cases was not warranted and concluded that CA. Kariya had not met the requirements of the declaration, which included both personal verification of the premises and verification of documents from original or certified records. As a result, the committee ordered that CA. Ravi Hareshkumar Kariya be reprimanded.
THE INSUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF NDIA
(Set up by an Act of Parliament)
[DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE [BENCH-IV (2024-2025)]
[Constituted under Section 21B of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949]
ORDER UNDER SECTION 21B (3) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 READ WITH RULE 19(1) OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT OF CASES) RULES, 2007
[PR/G/17312022-DD/96/2022-0C11628/2022]
In the matter of:
Versus
CA. Ravi Hareshkumar Kariya
Members Present: –
CA. Ranjeet Kumar Agarwal, Presiding Officer (in Person)
Mrs. Rani S Nair, I.R.S. (Retd.), Government Nominee (in Person)
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Member (in Person)
CA. Cotha S Srinivas, Member (through VC)
Date of Hearing : 3rd February 2025
Date of Order 8th February 2025
1. That vide Findings under Rule 18(17) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, the Disciplinary Committee was, inter-alia, of the opinion that CA. Ravi Hareshkumar Kariya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) is GUILTY of Professional Misconduct falling within the meaning of Item (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
2. That pursuant to the said Findings, an action under Section 21B (3) of the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006 was contemplated against the Respondent and a communication was addressed to him thereby granting opportunity of being heard in person / through video conferencing and to make representation before the Committee on 03rd February 2025.
3. The Respondent was present before the Committee on 03rd February 2025 through video conferencing and made his verbal representation on the Findings of the Disciplinary Committee, inter-alia, stating that the DINs of the Directors of the Company were not obtained by him as they were already subsisting. No document was in Chinese language and the Complainant Department has not produced anything regarding the same. He relied on the notarized copies of the documents, majorly being the Singapore notary/apostille and the same were verified from their website. He further added that he had not seen the original verified documents but verified them from the source website itself, which is the counterpart of MCA out there in Singapore which pertains to the parent company documents. Lastly, about the consent of Director, DIR 2, the consent was already there and the same was mentioned by Mr. Saurav, the Indian Director when he was probably summoned by ROC and the same is there in his Statement, which is already on record. Thus, he relied on the certified copies and had done his due diligence with respect to the documentation.
3.1 Further, with respect to physical verification, he stated that the registered office was not personally visited by him, of course, but the ROC has not raised any concern that the first office verification was unsuccessful. There were probably a couple of instances where the offices were changed later on, and ROC officials may have visited there and probably could not find anybody there. Even if the Respondent had visited the office and if somebody was not to be found there, then the Respondent should not be held guilty of it. He further added that it was a well-known shared space in Bangalore. As per the copy of the utility bill, the office was existent. The NOC was signed by the main owners. The lease agreement was not required to be submitted to ROC at any point of time. Still, the same was obtained as a matter of extra caution.
4. The Committee also noted that the Respondent in his written representation dated 28thJanuary 2025 on the Findings of the Committee, inter-alia, stated as under: –
(a) With regard to Chartered Accountants who did not personally visited/verified the premises of a Registered Office of a Company, the Respondent referred to the decisions issued by Disciplinary Committee in PR/G/154/2022/DD/136/2022/DC/1612/2022 dated 03.10.2023 in the matter of CA. Sanjeevan vs. CA. Parameshwari D., and PR/G/2022/DD/DC/1713/2023 dated 28.11.2024 in the matter of ROC, Mumbai vs. CA. Suraj Mishra. Given that in the past, CAs who have (like the Respondent herein) not personally visited the office premises of the Company in question but secured verification of the existence thereof through other means, have been found not guilty of Professional Misconduct, it is the Respondent’s case that on this ground, the Respondent too should be found not guilty.
(b) The Committee has only considered the statement of the Respondent recorded on 03.03.2022 by the Complainant Department in arriving at its Findings in relation to this aspect, without fully considering the Respondent’s position that the physical existence of the Office Premises was verified through a proper check of relevant documentation, none of which has till date been disputed or found to be fabricated or untrue.
(c) With regard to the charge that the Respondent gave an “incorrect declaration while certifying Form-INC 32”, the Respondent stated that the declaration given (and required to be given) by the Respondent was that he verified the “original/certified copies maintained by the applicant which is subject matter of this Form and found them to be true, correct, and complete..”. The Respondent re-emphasized that as per law, Notary Public is given authority to certify true copies of original documents. All documents/attachments appended to the Form INC-32 in question were notarized by either a Notary Public in India or abroad. Given this, it is permissible for a CA certifying Form INC-32 to rely upon such certified copies. If this was not the case the declaration would not have included the phrase “certified copies”.
(d) There is no material on record to show that any of the documents in question were forged/fabricated or contained material irregularities or inaccuracies and the document verification exercise undertaken by the Respondent was in any way inadequate.
5. The Committee considered the reasoning as contained in the Findings holding the Respondent Guilty of Professional Misconduct vis-a-vis written and verbal representation of the Respondent. As regard the submission of the Respondent regarding comparing the instant case with an earlier decided case, the Committee is of the view that comparing two distinct disciplinary cases as ‘eye to eye, apple to apple’, is not warranted as each case is decided on merits on the basis of documents and submissions on record. After due consideration of all the facts, submissions and documents on record, the Committee arrived at its Findings holding the Respondent guilty in respect of the charges alleged against him in Form T.
6. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record including verbal and written representation of the Respondent on the Findings, the Committee held that that the Respondent was expected to verify the particulars of INC Form 32 (including attachments thereto) from the original/certified records maintained by the Company. The Respondent verified the particulars on the basis of scanned copies received through email. The Committee further noted that during the hearing held on 14th June 2024, the Respondent clearly admitted that he never visited the premises of the proposed registered office of the Company.
6.1 The Committee noted that while certifying the INC Form 32, the certifying professional is required to give declaration whether he has personally visited the premises of the proposed registered office given in the Form at the address mentioned and whether he has verified the particulars (including attachment(s)) from the original/certified records maintained by the applicant which is subject matter of this Form and found them to be true, correct and complete and no information material to this Form has been suppressed. However, in the extant case, both the requirements have not been met by the Respondent. Thus, the Committee was of the view that the Respondent should have been more diligent and ensured that the declaration made by him while certifying Form INC-32 was correct.
6.2 Hence, professional misconduct on the part of the Respondent is clearly established as spelt out in the Committee’s Findings dated 23rd January 2025 which is to be read in consonance with the instant Order being passed in the case.
7. Accordingly, the Committee was of the view that ends of justice will be met if punishment is given to the Respondent in commensurate with his professional misconduct.
8. Thus, the Committee ordered that CA. Ravi Hareshkumar Kariya be Reprimanded under Section 21B(3)(a) of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949.
Sd/-
(CA. RANJEET KUMAR AGARWAL)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Sd/-
(MRS. RANI S NAIR, I.R.S. (RETD.)
GOVERNMENT NOMINEE
Sd/-
(CA. SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(CA. COTHA S SRINIVAS)
MEMBER
