N.K.JAIN, V.G.SABHAHIT
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
AJIT KUMAR IDDYA – Respondent
( 2 ) THE necessary facts in brief are that a complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent before the appellant alleging that the 1st respondent-petitioner accepted the statutory auditorship of a company viz. , M/s. Navabharath Flange and Allied Industries ltd. , Bombay without ascertaining compliance of Sections 224 and 225 of the Companies act, 1956 (for short the Act) and without issuing a registered notice to the 2nd respondent. On a complaint, the ICAI referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee to hold enquiry, and the Disciplinary authority after hearing the parties was of the view that the 1st respondent-petitioner had complied with the requirements under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short the CA Act) and his conduct was totally bona fide, and that the lapse, if any, was on the part of the company as it did not comply with the cifcular of the Company Law board, and concluded that the 1st respondent-petitioner was not guilty of any professional misconduct under C
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.