Council Of The Institute Of ... vs Ca Subhajit Sahoo & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 3595 Del

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CHAT.A.REF 8/2014
      COUNCIL  OF    THE   INSTITUTE        OF     CHARTERED
      ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA                      ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, Advocate along
                            with Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Advocate.
                  versus

      CA SUBHAJIT SAHOO & ANR                 ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Ashish Makhija, Advocate along
                             with Arunesh Kumar and Mr. Mukesh
                             Kumar, Advocates.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

                           ORDER

% 25.07.2017

1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 14.07.2017, on which date, during the course of arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties, an adjournment was prayed for by Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner to enable him to obtain instructions as to the practice and procedure followed by the Council while recording the presence of 1/3rd of the total number of members from constituting the quorum in terms of Regulations 164, when there is a fraction of less than 0.5 involved in totalling the number of members required to complete the quorum.

2. Today, Mr. Aggarwal fairly states that as per the instructions received, in circumstances as mentioned above, wherever the fraction is of less than 0.5, it is rounded up to the next higher figure.

3. In other words, if the number of members comprised in the Council are 40 and in this case, 14 members were present but one of them, namely Shri. J. Venkateshwarlu, did not participate in the said proceedings since he was a part of the Disciplinary Committee, 1/3rd of the 40 members on a percentage-wise basis would come to 13.33% and going by the practice followed by the petitioner, 14 members would have been required to be present to complete the quorum, whereas the members present on 02.06.2013, were 13.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the decision of the petitioner/Council in relation to the respondent as taken on 02.06.2013. Further, it is directed that in its next meeting, the Council shall consider the report of the Disciplinary Committee afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides along with the written representation received from the respondent and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law, with intimation to the respondent.

6. The petition is disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J JULY 25, 2017/ss