Delhi High Court
Igl Finance Ltd. vs The Institute Of Chartered ... on 24 July, 2017
$~13
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6471/2016 & CM No.26517/2016
% Date of decision : 24th July, 2017
IGL FINANCE LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Puja Dewan Seth and Mr.
Vijay Seth, Advs.
versus
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & ANR ... Respondents
Through : Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner inter alia
assails the provision of Rule 16(5) of the Chartered Accountants
(Procedure and Investigations of Professional and other misconduct
and conduct of cases) Rules, 2007 as unconstitutional being invalid
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it is
submitted by Mr. Sachin Datta, ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner
that he does not press this challenge. It is therefore not necessary for
us to examine the challenge to the constitutional validity of the said
rule which is hereby disposed of as not pressed.
2. It is asserted by the writ petitioner that on 5th September, 2013,
a complaint was filed against Shri Mukesh P. Shah, Chartered
Accountant regarding his alleged involvement in the National Spot
Exchange Limited Scam (NSEL Scam). On 3rd October, 2013, the
Disciplinary Directorate of the Institute of Chartered Accountant
called for the written statement from the said professional. The
Disciplinary Directorate on 4th November, 2013 wrote to the petitioner
that under Rule 5(4)(a) of the said rule, its complaint has been clubbed
with the previous complaint which had been made by Shri Uday Punj
and that under the said rule the complaint of Shri Uday Punj shall be
treated as the only complaint before it,
3. A previous writ petition by the petitioner inter alia challenging
the Rule 5(4) of the said rule being WP(C)No.4453/2015 IGL
Finance Limited v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India &
Ors. came to be disposed of by the order dated 5 th May, 2015 wherein
it was noted that the allegations had been investigated by the
Disciplinary Directorate; and that the matter was pending with the
Disciplinary Directorate for forming a prima facie opinion regarding
allegations of misconduct.
Ld. counsel appearing for the Institute of Chartered Accountants
had assured this court that further proceedings would expeditiously be
taken in accordance with law.
4. It appears that on account of delayed consideration, the
petitioner complained of violation of the order passed in
WP(C)No.4453/2015 and filed contempt petition No.914/2015 IGL
Finance v. V. Sagar & Anr. which was disposed of on the 30th of
November, 2015 after recording the submission that the Disciplinary
Committee had already fixed the date of hearing in the third week of
December, 2015.
5. It is not disputed that the matter is pending before the
Disciplinary Committee which has considered the matter at Mumbai
including on the 6th of January, 2016. Though the petitioner complains
against the transfer of the matter under consideration to Mumbai, it is
explained by Ms. Pooja M Saigal, ld. counsel appearing for the
Institute of Chartered Accountants, that the proceedings are being
conducted at Mumbai only for the purpose of enabling the concerned
Chartered Accountant to place his evidence and defence before the
Committee and that the proceedings have not been transferred. It is
submitted that there is reference to and reliance upon active
voluminous record which would be in the power and possession of the
Chartered Accountant who resides and works at Mumbai. It is stated
in the counter affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant Institution -
respondent no.1 that it is a practice followed by the Disciplinary
Committee, to hear the matter at a place close to where the member
practices. Inasmuch as, invariably, the Disciplinary Committee seeks
information regarding the complaint from such member which would
include his records, this is purely so conducted to ensure that
information is readily available.
6. Our attention is also drawn to several occasions on which the
petitioner appears to have acceded to the jurisdiction of the committee
conducting the proceedings at Mumbai; having sought adjournments
from it and also filed applications in the proceedings without objecting
at all to the proceedings.
7. Be that as it may, the main grievance of the petitioner as has
been pressed before us relates to expeditious dismissal of complaint.
Apprehension is expressed that in case matter is delayed, it may
not receive final consideration and that whole purpose of making the
complaint would be defeated.
There is some substance in this apprehension.
8. We may note that Shri Mukesh P. Shah, Chartered Accountant
has not been impleaded as party respondent in the present case.
Having regard to the nature of the order which we propose to pass
which can not impact the merits of the complaint, it is not necessary to
have his presence in the present proceedings today.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition and the pending application are
disposed of with a direction to the respondent to expeditiously dispose
of the complaint made by the petitioner in accordance with law,
having regard to the nature of the orders contemplated before us.
10. The Disciplinary Committee of the Institution of Chartered
Accountants of India shall endeavour to conclude the consideration of
the complaint expeditiously, preferably within one year from today.
11. The petitioner shall be informed in writing of the next date of
hearing within one week from today.
12. This writ petition and application are disposed of in the above
terms.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 24, 2017
mk
