9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her 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 appellant is Wholesale Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. The person who has filed this writ petition has the general authority, as alleged by this appellant, to file complaint under Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007. This appellant submits that it is engaged amongst other things, in the business of trading of agricultural commodity, along with other goods. * This appellant (original petitioner) had filed a complaint on 26th September, 2016 (Annexure A-6) against Respondent No. 3 - Chartered Accountant Sh. Jayesh M. Gandhi who is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and is a practicing chartered accountant. It is alleged in this complaint that the accounts and audit reports in respect of the following seven companies have not been prepared in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and as per the directions issued by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntants 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 nature of the complaint and the written statement filed by Mr. Jayesh M. Gandhi, and looking to the provisions of the Act, 1949 read with the Rules, 2007. * Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Board of Discipline dated 1st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3) and also being aggrieved by the order of the Director (Discipline) dated 24th September, 2018 (Annexure A-4), this appellant had preferred W.P.(C) 8081/2019. * As W.P.(C) 8081/2019, preferred by this appellant, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 1st August, 2019, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) * Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007, this appellant has general authorisation to make a complaint and as per Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007, there is no need of any specific authorisation. * It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant (original pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited, (b) Prazim Trading and Investment Company Private Limited, (c) Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (d) Tarish Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (e) Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (f) Zash Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (g) Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited. (iii) This appellant has nothing to do with the aforesaid companies. This appellant has no cause of action with the aforesaid seven companies. (iv) This appellant has no specific authorisation as required under Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007. For the ready reference, Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007 reads as under : "3(4) A complaint filed by or on behalf of a company or a firm, shall be accompanied by a resolution, duly passed by the Board of Directors of the company or the partners of the firm, as the case may be, specifically authorizing an officer or a person to make the complaint on behalf of the company or the firm." (Emphasis supplied) (v) The usage of the words "the complaint" in Rule 3(4) indicate that the "specific authorization" contemplated therein has to be to file the particular complaint - in 'this' c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eports were issued in the same month. The complaint is dated 26 September, 2016 which is after a long gap of more than 7 years from my signing of the relevant audit reports. It is beyond the requirement of maintaining audit records for 7 years as per the announcement of ICAI (refer Annexure I). In my opinion, the complaint should not be entertained as the auditors are not bound to keep their working papers beyond seven years and therefore all the relevant audit papers may not be available for reply to the complaint. I would like to point out that this complaint is filed under The Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 and as per clause 12 of the Rules, this complaint should not be entertained as it is beyond period of seven years from date of signing of the audit reports." A conjoint reading of Rule 12 with the written statement filed by Respondent No. 3, it appears that the complaint was filed after 7 years, which has led to difficulty for the chartered accountant - Mr. Jayesh M. Gandhi. It has been mentioned categorically by Respondent No. 3 that the working papers may not be available on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
