TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge the scheme of merger which was rejected by the Karnataka High Court by its order dated 17.03.2021, there are no ground to permit petitioner to start parallel proceedings to challenge a scheme of merger which has been sanctioned by the Karnataka High Court, before this Court or indirectly challenge the same by way of asking the Institute of Chartered Accountants to return a finding on the reports submitted by respondent No.3 before the Karnataka High Court and acted upon by it. There are no infirmity in the view taken by the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants that as respondent No.3 was appointed by Karnataka High Court and reports were submitted to the Karnataka High Court, it is only the High Court of Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned companies were to be amalgamated into the fourth company. 5. The scheme of arrangement of amalgamation was filed before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court of Karnataka appointed respondent No. 3 for the purposes of verification of the books and papers of the three transferor companies and to submit his report. 6. Respondent No.3 submitted his reports on 25.11.2014 to the Karnataka High Court. By order dated 26.03.2015, the scheme of merger was sanctioned by the Karnataka High Court. 7. Petitioner is neither a shareholder in any of the companies nor was respondent No.3 ever associated with the petitioner in any manner. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is a public spi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant complaint was dismissed by the Committee. Conclusion : 6. Thus, the Committee dismissed the extant Complaint. However, the Complainant has right to file case before the Disciplinary mechanism of the Institute with the copy of Order of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka. 10. Petitioner aggrieved by order of dismissal of his complaint has filed the subject petition. 11. On 08.02.2021, Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit, within 2 weeks, indicating his connection with respect to the companies in respect of which subject audit was conducted by respondent No.3. Said order also records the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner that petitioner is not a creditor of the said company. 12. Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Committee within a period of three weeks, imposed on the Appellant. 3. Wholesale Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICAI Ors; WP(C) 8071/2019 04.12.2017 Hon ble Delhi High Court ₹ 10,000/- Payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks, imposed on the Appellant. 4. Wholesale Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICAI Ors; WP(C) 8081/2019 01.08.2019 Hon ble Delhi High Court ₹ 1,00,000/- payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks, imposed on the Appellant. This order has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Karnataka High Court. 20. The recall application has been dismissed by the Karnataka High Court by its order dated 17.03.2021 holding that applicant was not a party to the main petition and did not has the locus standi to file the application. 21. Said order records that applicant was not an aggrieved party as was neither a shareholder nor a director or any other person who is connected to or has a nexus with the parties to the proceedings or the impugned order. The order also records that the applicant was guilty of abuse of process of law, as the claim of the applicant had been rejected not only by Ministry of Corporate Affairs but also by the Reserve Bank of India. 22. It is pointed out by learned senior counsel appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the High Court of Karnataka, any inquiry could be conducted by the Disciplinary Committee. 27. What the petitioner and his advocate, Mr. R. Subramanian are seeking to do is to start parallel proceedings to challenge the sanction of merger by Karnataka High Court. As noticed by the Karnataka High Court as also admitted by the petitioner and Mr. R. Subramanian that the petitioner or Mr. R. Subramanian are neither shareholders, nor directors or any person connected or having a nexus to the parties to the scheme of merger. 28. Since the petitioner has no connection or locus and in fact counsel for the petitioner has himself sought to challenge the scheme of merger which was rejected by the Karnataka High Court by its order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
