2017 (7) TMI 1398 - HC - Companies Law

Professional misconduct against several chartered accountants - seeking direction to the respondents to expedite and complete the enquiry thereon - constitutionality of Rules 9, 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 - HELD THAT - It is obvious that the present writ petitioner is indulging in judicial adventurism and the present petition is not bona fide. Nothing precluded the petitioner from seeking the prayer which made herein in the previous writ petition or seeking amendment thereof to incorporate the present prayer. This litigation is not being conducted by counsel pro bono. It is field under legal advice. The writ petition refers to a complaint regarding professional misconduct by a Chartered Accountant. Therefore, a proper legal advice deserved to be given to the petitioner to incorporate all his challenges which rest on the same factual basis, in one petition - This kind of filing deserves to be deprecated in as much as it results in unwarranted multiplicity of litigation and wastage of judicial time. It puts pressure on an over-worked registry. Petition dismissed with costs which are quantified at ₹ 10,000/.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the constitutionality of specific rules of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.
2. Judicial adventurism in filing multiple petitions on the same issue.
3. Wastage of judicial time and unwarranted multiplicity of litigation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the constitutionality of specific rules
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Rules 9, 14, 15, 18, and 19 of the Chartered Accountants Rules. The petitioner sought to challenge these rules as part of a plea related to complaints of professional misconduct against chartered accountants. The court noted that the real prayer made by the petitioner was related to the complaints that were the subject matter of a previous writ petition. The court observed that the petitioner's challenge to the rules seemed to be a device to seek another hearing on the same issue. The court criticized the petitioner for incorporating the challenge to the rules in a separate petition instead of amending the previous petition. The court deemed this approach as judicial adventurism and not bona fide.

Issue 2: Judicial adventurism in filing multiple petitions
The court expressed disapproval of the petitioner's approach of filing a new petition instead of amending the previous petition to include the new prayer. The court highlighted that the petitioner's actions led to unwarranted multiplicity of litigation and wastage of judicial time. The court noted that the petitioner had legal advice and should have consolidated all challenges based on the same factual basis into one petition. The court emphasized that such filing practices put pressure on the judicial system and the registry, leading to unnecessary burden and inefficiency.

Issue 3: Wastage of judicial time and unwarranted multiplicity of litigation
The court dismissed the present writ petition with costs, quantified at ?10,000, due to the petitioner's indulgence in judicial adventurism and filing multiple petitions on the same issue. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but emphasized that the petitioner's actions were not in line with the principles of efficient judicial process. The court underscored the need to discourage such practices that result in unnecessary litigation and strain on the judicial system.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of judicial efficiency, discouraging unwarranted multiplicity of litigation, and the need for litigants to consolidate their challenges into a single petition to avoid unnecessary burden on the courts.