Delhi High Court
Council Of The Instt. Of Chartered ... vs Rakesh Verma & Anr. on 8 August, 2016
$-R-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: August 08, 2016
+ CHAT.A.REF.5/2011
COUNCIL OF THE INSTT. OF CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Agarwal, Advocate
with Mr.Pulkit Agarwal,
Advocate
versus
RAKESH VERMA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Isha Jha, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. Ms.Isha Jha, Advocate who appears for respondent Rakesh Verma has
shown to us a letter as per which the respondent No.1 Mr.Rakesh Verma
has taken back the file from learned counsel; undertaking to appear in the
matter himself.
2. It was the duty of Mr.Rakesh Verma to ensure that he appears himself
or through a counsel today. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and have perused the record.
3. The respondent No.1 is a Member of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants and is amenable to the disciplinary control as per the Chartered
Accountants Act, 1949.
4. The report of the Committee would bring out that on November 17,
2002 a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at, as per which the
respondent offered his services as a Chartered Accountant to obtain funds
and took `2.5 lacs as advance fee. The signatory to the Memorandum of
Understanding was one Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal. The respondent did nothing
except to proceed on a foreign trip. He secured no loan as per the MOU.
5. The complaint was made by M/s Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering
Ltd., Nagpur. The defence of the respondent was that he had not signed any
MOU with the company.
6. The disciplinary Committee of the Council has found that the cheque
in sum of `2.5 lacs received by the respondent was issued by the company
and thus the respondent was aware that the funds which he had to obtain
were for the benefit of M/s Sanvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., Nagpur.
An inference with which we agree.
7. That apart, the respondent does not claim to have taken any steps to
arrange for any funds for Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal. If his case was that he had
to arrange funds for Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal he had to establish having taken
steps to arrange the funds.
8. The stand taken by the respondent that since Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal
failed to provide him with the necessary documents he could not arrange for
the funds, has been dealt with by the Disciplinary Committee of the Council.
It has been held that the respondent produced no document to show that he
ever asked Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal to provide him any document. The
respondent admits having travelled to London and Oslo to secure the funds
contemplated by MOU.
9. Now, the respondent is a Chartered Accountant. We fail to understand
as to how come he proceeded to London and Norway if he had no
documents with him concerning either Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal or M/s Sanvijay
Rolling and Engineering Ltd., for obtaining funds.
10. As a Chartered Accountant he ought to know that a person would
advance a credit to an individual or a company after satisfying itself with the
credit worthiness of the individual or the company. All documents required
for a due diligence ought to have been taken by the respondent.
11. It is a clear case where the respondent No.1 has cheated M/s Sanvijay
Rolling and Engineering Ltd., Nagpur. Indeed, we concur that the
respondent No.1 has committed misconduct as per Section 21 and 22 of the
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The recommendation is to remove the
name of the respondent from the Register of Members for a period of one
year.
12. The conduct of the respondent justifies the proposed penalty.
13. We answer the Reference in the affirmative holding that the
respondent is guilty of misconduct and we impose the penalty of suspension
of the name of the respondent No.1 Rakesh Verma from the Register of
Members for a period of one year.
14. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 08, 2016
'skb'
