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

1962 Supreme(Cal) 238

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, C. N. Laik
CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPORTS, NEW DELHI - Appellant
Versus
G. P. ACHARYA - Respondent
O. S. M.  123  Of  1953
Decided On : NOVEMBER 30, 1962

Advocates Appeared:
B.C.GHOSE, K.P.SINHA, P.K.Sen, S.K.MUKHERJEE

The Court has the power to review the findings of professional bodies in disciplinary matters, but should not interfere unless there is a gross violation of the relevant legislation or regulations, a disregard of natural justice, or an obvious disregard of essential considerations of law or fact.

Headnote:

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 - SECTION 21 - GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCT OF PROFESSIONAL DUTIES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - EXTENT OF COURT'S JURISDICTION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PUNISHMENT - EXTENTUATING CIRCUMSTANCES - WARNING ADMINISTERED INSTEAD OF REMOVAL FROM REGISTER.

Fact of the Case:

A Chartered Accountant certified a statement of exports of onions, which contained false and inaccurate statements in respect of three items of invoice value. The Disciplinary Committee and the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants found him guilty of gross negligence in the conduct of his professional duty and recommended his removal from the register.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Chartered Accountant was guilty of gross negligence in the conduct of his professional duties, but considered certain extenuating circumstances in his favor, including his admission of the mistake, the absence of any attempt to conceal the facts, the good record of the Chartered Accountant and the firm involved, the relatively small amount involved, and the inaccuracy of the shipping document register provided by the client.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chartered Accountant was guilty of gross negligence in the conduct of his professional duties. 2. Whether the punishment of removal from the register was appropriate in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the term "gross negligence" in the context of professional duties as a failure to act honestly and reasonably, and held that the Chartered Accountant's actions in this case amounted to gross negligence. 2. The Court held that the punishment of removal from the register was too severe in the circumstances, considering the extenuating circumstances in favor of the Chartered Accountant. The Court noted that the Chartered Accountant had admitted his mistake, had not attempted to conceal the facts, had a good record, and that the amount involved was relatively small.

Final Decision: The Court administered a severe warning to the Chartered Accountant and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. The Court set aside the order of the Council and the Disciplinary Committee to the extent that it recommended the Chartered Accountant's removal from the register.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Reference under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Chief controller of Exportes, New Delhi, is the complainant and G. P. Acharya, B. SC, F. C. A. , Quartered Accountant and Auditor, is the respondent.

( 2 ) THE complaint against the Chartered Accountant is that he duly certified a statement of exports of onions during 1949-50 before the Joint Chief Controller of Ex-ports, Calcutta, showing that a firm called "pawjee Dadabhoy and Co. " of 67, Canning street, Calcutta, had exported a certain quantity of onions during a certain number of years. This statement was necessary for obtaining permits to export the goods. The certificate which the Chartered Accountant gave was as follows:"g. P. Acharya, B. Sc. , F. C. A. , Chartered Accountant and Auditor (Membership No. 837) practising at Calcutta do hereby certify that the above statement has been prepared, checked and verified by me from and with reference to export licenses, shipping bills, E. P. Forms, Bills of Lading, Export invoices, account books and other documents in the possession of the firm maintained by them in the course of their export business and that the exports have been made by the Firm in their own name and I do hereby further certify that the particulars shown in the original documents have been examined by me with the particulars shown in the above statement and are substantially correct".

( 3 ) THE above certificate admittedly contained false and inaccurate statements in respect of three items of invoice value -- (1) Rs. 280/-, (2) Rs. 1995/- and (3) Rs. 8641/ -. These figures were figures of exports effected by two other firms and not by the firm Dawjee Dadapnoy and Co. Therefore, the statement in the certificate that these exports were made by the firm in their own name was false. That is the substance of the complaint against the Chartered Accountant. The lots of Tons 4-9-1-18 and Tons 15-10-0-10 were shipped by M/s. K. V. R. M. k. Chetty and M. C. Dhalech respectively and not by M/s Oawjee Dadabhoy and Co. This inaccuracy was revealed on an examination of the Bills of Lading and Invoices produced by the firm.

( 4 ) IT is admitted by the Chartered Accountant that this was "a gross clerical mistake", cut he says that this gross clerical mistake was by his staff, as will be found from his letter to the Assistant Controller of Exports, exhibit 4. His case is that the snipping documents together with their Register (wherein extract of particulars from Bills of Lading, Custom Receipt, etc. were recorded) were lying with their Clearing Agents, M/s crown Agency of the firm of Dawjee Dadabhoy and CD. and which Agents were handling the quota application affair. According to the case made by the Chartered Accountant in the Written Statement filed by him before the Discoplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, he says his clerk was deputed to verify those documents with the statement, and to report next day. That clerk reported that the papers were in order and so the Chartered Accountant signed the certificate on the 23rd October, 1951, which f have quoted above. His case further in the written statement is that when he received the letter dated the 14th February, 1952 from the Joint Controller of Exports and imports, Calcutta, he examinee the available records of the firm once again and found that (i) their Shipping Documents Register was inaccurate, and (ii) both We firm's clerk who prepared the statement and his own clerk had erred in including the disputed items in the statement, under misconception. The misconception is this that they were of the opinion, that as the lots under the disputed items were sold and billed by the firm to their foreign clients, they treated them as exports of the firm itself. In other words, although other firms were exporting these goods on their Bills of Lading, these Bills of Lading were ultimately purchased by the firm of Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. T













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