SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(SC) 83

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS AND GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and another, Appellants
Versus
B. Mukherjea, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1956.
10th September, 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (M/S. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co. with him), for Appellants; M/s. Aswini Kumar Ghose, T. S. Venkataraman and K. R. Chaudhury, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
ASWINI GHOSE, J.B.DADACHAN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, M.C.SETALVAD, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.S.VENKATA RAMANA

Headnote:OBJECT AND SCOPE—Expression "DEEMED TO BE IN PRACTICE" - OBJECT - CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HELD GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT - DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS - CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ACTING AS LIQUIDATOR - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT—Scope - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - Membership—CONDUCT WHICH, IF PROVED, WILL RENDER A PERSON UNFIT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE—DEFINITION - POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS

       

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The material facts leading to the present appeal are not in dispute and may be conveniently stated at the outset. On 17-7-1933, the respondent was enrolled as a registered accountant under the Auditors Certificate Rules, 1932. When the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, came into operation, the respondent s name was entered as a Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India on 1-7-1949. In 13-9-1950, the respondent was appointed a Liquidator of three companies. The respondent obtained refund of the sums and securities deposited on behalf of the three companies with the Reserve Bank of India. He, however, made no report about the progress of liquidation of the said three companies. Repeated requests made to him by the Assistant Controller of Insurance found no response. As Liquidator the respondent gave a cheque to Shri S. K. Mandal, Solicitor to the Central Government at Calcutta, towards payment of the taxes costs in the winding-up proceedings of one of the companies. The said cheque, was, however, returned dishonoured on the ground that the payment had not been arranged for. When the Assistant Controller of Insurance found that the conduct of the respondent as Liquidator was wholly unsatisfactory and that he would not even show the ordinary courtesy of replying to the letters addressed to him, he proceeded to cancel the appointment of the respondent as Liquidator by his letter dated 29-10-1952. The respondent was then called upon to hand over all books of account, records, documents, etc., to Shri N. N. Das, who was appointed a Liquidator in his place, Shri Das as well as the Assistant Controller of Insurance then made repeated demands on the respondent to deliver to Shri Das the assets and records of the three companies. It is common ground that the respondent had with him securities of the value of Rs. 11,950 and a cash sum of Rs. 642 on account of the United Common Provident Insurance Co. Ltd. He had also with him securities to the value of Rs. 12,000 on account of the Asiatic Provident Co. Ltd., and securities and cash on account of the Citizens of India Provident Insurance Co. Ltd. Out of these amounts the respondent returned only securities of the face value of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 350 of Asiatic Provident Co. Ltd., and United Common Provident Insurance Co. Ltd., respectively. He failed to send any further securities or cash held by him on account of the said three companies. It was at this stage that a complaint was lodged against the respondent with the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in Calcutta. As required by the provisions of the Act, the disciplinary committee of the Council inquired into the matter. Notice was served on the respondent but he filed no written statements within the time fixed. On 1-8-1953, a letter was received from the respondent that he was ill and was unable to attend personally. The respondent had also requested for the adjournment of the case. Proceedings were accordingly adjourned to 29-8-1953, on which date the respondent was represented by a counsel who filed the respondent s affidavit stating that he was prepared to hand over the entire cash, books of account, etc., to the newly appointed Liquidator without rendering the necessary accounts. It appears that Shri Das, the subsequently appointed Liquidator, gave evidence before the disciplinary committee. Though several opportunities were given to the respondent to appear before the disciplinary committee he failed to appear or to take part in the proceedings. Ultimately the committee made its report on September 13, 1953, and found that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence in the conduct of his professional duty in not handing over charge of the assets and the books of account of the said companies to the newly appointed Liquidator. This report was considered by the Council itself as required by the Act. The Council agreed with the finding recorded by the disciplinary




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top