( 1 ) THE appellant-Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short the ICAI) has filed this appeal against the order dated 15-9-2000 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 37189/1995.

( 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 Clause (9) of Part i of the First Schedule to the CA Act, vide order dated 14-1-1994. A notice dated 13-2-1995 (Annexure-D) was issued by the icai to the 1st respondent-petitioner, stating that the Council will consider the report of the Disciplinary Committee along with written representation or oral submissions, if any, and that the oral submissions can be made by him either in person or through a member of the Institute duly authorised by him. It was further stated in the notice that the date, time and venue of the Council meeting would be intimated to the 1st respondent-petitioner later on and also that if the 1st respondent-petitioner so desires, may send his representation in writing. The same was replied by the 1st respondent-petitioner vide Annexure-F dated 22-3-1995 stating that as the Disciplinary Committee concluded that he is not guilty of any professional misconduct, he did not wish to appear in person or through a member of the Institute before the Council nor to make any written submission. Thereafter, the council of ICAI conveyed its decision, vide order dated 18-9-1995. to the 1st respondent-petitioner stating that neither he nor his authorised representative appeared before the Council and on considering the report of the Disciplinary Committee, the Council decided that a further enquiry in the case was necessary to be made by the Disciplinary committee. The same was challenged by the 1st respondent-petitioner before the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 37189/1995 and the learned single Judge, on consideration, quashed the impugned order dated 18-9-1995 and allowed the writ petition, as stated.

( 3 ) SRI Jayaram, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the 1st respondent-petitioner, despite notice, never appeared before the Council nor filed any written statement, and therefore, it was within the competence of the appellant to order for further enquiry and that the Council has power to do so and that the learned single Judge misdirected himself and erred in approving the finding of the Disciplinary committee ignoring the case laws particularly the decision in Institute of Chartered accountants of India v. Price Water House (reported in (1997) 6 SCC 312 : AIR 1998 sc 74 ). He further submits that the Council has the jurisdiction, authority and power to call for a further report from the Disciplinary committee under Regulation 16 (3) before the Council proceeded to record any finding under Regulation 16 (4) of the CA Act. He further submits that the learned single judge extended the scope of the writ petition by approving the finding of the Disciplinary committee and erred in holding that the Council has no power to call for further enquiry, and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside and fu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document