Delhi High Court
Alig And Associates & Anr. vs Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of ... on 9 July, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 561/2024 & C.M.Nos.37854-37855/2024
ALIG AND ASSOCIATES & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr.M.R.Shamshad with Mr.Sarwar
Raza, Mohd. Waseem Akram and
Mohd. Zaid, Advocates.
versus
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA &
ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Pooja Saigal with Mr.Jatin Dua,
Advocates for R-1.
% Date of Decision: 09th July, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing
the present appeal is condoned.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
3. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
4. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
5. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order
dated 20th March, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
WP(C) 8116/2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was held
to be infructuous.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellant no.2 being
Chartered Accountant was registered with the respondents on 3rd August,
2006. The grievance of the appellant no.2 is that due to the non-payment of
annual membership/COP fee for the Financial Year 2019-2020 prior to 31st
May, 2020, her seniority in the membership registration has been lost.
7. He states that even after the payment of the membership fee, the
respondent no.1 has issued a fresh COP to the appellant no.2 and has
consequently registered the appellant no.1-firm as a new firm, which will act
detrimental to the sixteen years of hard work and reputation that the
appellants have built in the market. He states that notwithstanding the above,
the appellant no.1 will also lose credential to apply for various
empanelments in government and non-government organizations or fresh
registration as empanelment requires certain minimum years of experience
which the Appellants have lost due to the arbitrariness displayed by the
respondent no.1.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that there is no
cancellation of the membership of the appellants affecting livelihood, as is
being claimed by the appellants. She further states that the original
certificate of practice granted in 2006 will remain valid till 01st March, 2020,
on which date the certificate of practice automatically stood cancelled due to
non-submission of the renewal fee. She further states that the certificate of
practice once again become operative from 01st February, 2021 when a
request for a new certificate of practice was made by the appellants and
granted by the respondent/Institute. According to her, the gap, if at all, is
going to be for a period of nearly eleven months and not an obliteration of
sixteen years, as is being incorrectly contended by the appellants.
9. In view of the aforesaid statements, learned counsel for the appellants
does not wish to press the present appeal.
10. Recording the statements/clarification given by learned counsel for
respondent no.1 (as also stated in the counter affidavit), the present appeal is
closed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 09, 2024
KA
