TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter was treated as information and in accordance with regulation 12(6) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations 1988, a letter was issued by the Council on December 30, 2005 calling upon the firm of chartered accountants to disclose the name of the members answerable to the charges. The respondent submitted his written statement of defences on July 25, 2006 i.e. much before the Act was amended on November 17, 2006. We accordingly hold the reference to be maintainable for the reason that matter would have to be decided as per the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 and not as amended by the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006.The application is dismissed. - CHAT.A.REF 1/2014 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2017 - MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG MR. YOGE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions would apply to a fresh complaint or information and the unamended Act will apply to the pending complaints or information. It is inconceivable and there is no good reason or cause why distinction should be made between information and complaint for the purpose of deciding whether the amended or unamended provision would apply. The legislation intent behind incorporating Section 21D is to make the legal position beyond doubt or cavil so that there is no dispute. Even under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the position is the same. In these circumstances, we would prefer the interpretation placed by the appellant on the word complaint as used in Section 21D. The word complaint includes information cases which were p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. 1. On February 06, 2002 the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) made a complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants alleging that for the year 2000-01 the Joint Statutory Auditors of Cotton Corporation of India : M/s Megha Associates had committed misconduct while performing duties as the auditors of Cotton Corporation of India (CCI). 2. After correspondence with the firm the Council of the petitioner at the meeting held on 28th and 29th August, 2008 referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for inquiry. 3. In its report dated August 01, 2011 the Disciplinary Committee absolved the respondent, who was in charge of the audit, of the first and the second misconduct alleged. But hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
