Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2011 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 845 - HIGH COURT OF DELHIWrit petition – whether Rule 9(3)(b) of Chartered Accountants Rules, 2007 ultra vires as the said Rule transgresses and supplants section 21A(4) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 – Held that:- Section 21(4) stipulates that the Disciplinary Directorate shall follow the procedure as they may be specified. The procedure is specified in Rules including the impugned Rule 9(3)(b). Director (Discipline) functions as the Secretary of the Board of Discipline. in case Director (Discipline) gives a closure report on the basis of his or her opinion that there is no prima facie case, the Board of Discipline/Disciplinary Committee must accept that opinion and the only option to the Board of Discipline is to advise the Director (Discipline) to investigate the matter further. The provisions do not postulate finality to the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline). On the other hand, Director (Discipline) is the Secretary of the Board. The final determination whether or not a member is guilty of professional or other misconduct in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule, is decided by the Board of Discipline or the Disciplinary Committee. Board is not bound in all cases of disagreement to refer for reinvestigation. Rule 9(3)(b) is procedural and states how the steps should be taken and, therefore, it would be an anathema to the basic conception of statutory interpretation that section 9(3)(b) transgresses or encroaches upon the power conferred under section 21A(4). writ petition stands disposed of.
|