Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ICAI Vs M.S. Rathi Civil Appeal (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No. 10326/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/07/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Chartered Accountants Reference No. 5/2000.

2. Disciplinary action was taken against the Respondent herein for issuing certificates for consumption of raw materials showing the value of imported raw material as CIF value to the units without seeing the records since imported value of the raw materials should have been shown as value of the raw materials and not the CIF value. Further, the units did not maintain any record for past production, still the certificates were issued which shows that the figures were manipulated and the certificates issued were not correct.

3. After taking into consideration the reply filed and the submissions made by the Respondent herein, the Disciplinary Committee vide order dated 12th January, 1995 held that the Respondent while issuing the certificates to the units had failed to obtain sufficient information to warrant the expression of his opinion and found him guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Clauses (7) and (8) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with Sections 21 and 22 of the said Act. The matter was thereafter placed before the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Council’. The Council, after considering the submission of the Respondent herein, vide order dated 17th January, 1998 agreed with the findings of Disciplinary Committee and decided to recommend to the High Court that the Respondent be reprimanded.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the Respondent despite service of notice.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the High Court had committed an error of law in setting aside the findings of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Committee as also the Council which referred the matter to the High Court under the statutory provisions for the Respondent to be reprimanded.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031