TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) CM APPL. Nos. 40451-40452/2019 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications stand disposed of. LPA 586/2019 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, whose W.P.(C) 8081/2019 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1st August, 2019 (Annexure A-1) with costs of ₹ 1 lakh. 2. Factual matrix This appellant is the original petitioner, who had preferred W.P. (C) 8081/2019 challenging an order, dated 1st February, 2019, passed by Board of Discipline constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1949 ) to be read with the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as Rule, 2007 ). The impugned order of the Board of Discipline, dated 1st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3 to the memo of this LPA), is under challenge, along with the order passed by the Director (Discipline), dated 24th September, 2018 (Annexure A-4). This appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure delineated in the Rules, 2007, Director (Discipline) gave his prima facie opinion on 24th September, 2018 (Annexure A-4), that the complaint filed by this appellant, who is a complete stranger to the aforesaid seven companies, has filed the said complaint seven years past the last audit reports, which were for the financial year 2008-09, and looking at the written statement filed by Mr. Jayesh M. Gandhi, such a delay is beyond the period, as mentioned in Rule 12 of the Rules, 2007. Earlier, the writ petition, as preferred by this appellant (original petitioner), being W.P. (C) No. 4873/2017, which was dismissed by this Court, against which LPA 440/2017 was preferred, was decided by this court vide order dated 24th August, 2017 observing, prima facie, that opinion should be given within a period of eight weeks and, further proceedings be completed within a period of six weeks thereafter. Hence, Director (Discipline) has given a prima facie opinion under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and Board of Discipline has also passed an order dated 1st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3), stating therein that the complaint is time barred, looking to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s erring member and not between the complainant and the delinquent advocate. This larger perspective must determine the jurisdiction of the bodies set up to carry out the purposes of the Advocates Act. 4. Reasons Having heard counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal, mainly for the following facts and reasons : (i) This appellant is an original petitioner whose W.P.(C) 8081/2019 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1st August, 2019, with costs of ₹ 1 lakh and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. The order dated 1st August, 2019 of the learned Single Judge is at Annexure A-1 to the memo of this LPA. (ii) This appellant has filed a complaint dated 26th September, 2016 (Annexure A-6) against one Sh. Jayesh M. Gandhi, who is a chartered accountant, finding fault with his audit reports etc. for the following seven companies : (a) Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited, (b) Prazim Trading and Investment Company Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misconduct, or that the member or firm against whom the information has been received or the complaint has been filed, would find it difficult to lead evidence to defend himself or itself, as the case may be, on account of the time lag, or that changes have taken place rendering the inquiry procedurally inconvenient or difficult, he may refuse to entertain a complaint or information in respect of any misconduct made more than seven years after the same was alleged to have been committed and submit the same to the Board of Discipline for taking decision on it under sub-section (4) of section 21 A of the Act. The last of the audit reports was filed in June, 2009 by M/s N.M. Raiji Company, in which Mr. Jayesh M. Gandhi was one of the partners. The complaint was filed on 26th September, 2016. Written statement filed by Mr. Jayesh M. Gandhi (Annexure A-7), specifically paragraph 4 thereof, reads as under: 4. I would like to draw your attention that seven companies, which are subject matter of the complaint, are private limited companies without any public borrowings. Further, the complaint is in respect of audit of financial years 2005-06 to 2008-09. Audit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant (original petitioner) has nothing to do with the aforesaid seven companies. Moreover, this appellant has no specific authorization, as required under Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007. A complaint for improper audit for the year 2005-06 is filed in the year 2016. Similarly, for the year 2006-07, for the year 2007-08, and for the year 2008-09, the complaint is filed in the year 2016, i.e., after several years. Looking to the written statement filed by chartered accountant Sh. Jayesh M. Gandhi, especially as stated hereinabove, paragraph 4 of the written statement (Annexure A-7), the totality of these circumstances lead to the fact that this appellant is harassing Respondent No.3. No justifiable reasons have been given by this appellant as to why he has filed complaint against Respondent No. 3 and that too after several years of the audit of the aforesaid seven companies with which this appellant has no connection. These aspects of the matter have been also properly and appropriately appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 5. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
