2016 (7) TMI 1189 - HC - Indian Laws

Running coaching classing by chartered accountant while using the prefix as CA - wilful violation of the statement given to the Court - Disciplinary proceedings against the Chartered Accountant (CA) - guilty of other misconduct falling within the meaning of clause (2) Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 - Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondent along with his name is mentioning CA which implies that he is offering the services of the accountancy and representing himself as Chartered Accountant. Held that - This contention is also not acceptable as the respondent is registered as a Chartered Accountant and till he is removed from the rolls he is entitled to use the prefix and suffix CA . - the respondent has been awarded the punishment of reprimand and has neither been suspended nor removed from the rolls of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The issuance of advertisements offering to take coaching classes and to impart of training to aspirants of the profession of chartered accountancy in the above circumstances cannot be said to be carrying on the profession of chartered accountancy so as to constitute wilful violation of the undertaking given to this court on 14.03.2016. Petition dismissed - Decided in favor of Respondent/ Chartered Accountant.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of statement given to the Court regarding practicing chartered accountancy.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent wilfully violated a statement made in a previous petition regarding not practicing as a Chartered Accountant until the next hearing. The respondent had challenged a report by the Board of Discipline of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, which found him guilty of misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

During the previous hearing, the respondent had given a statement through his counsel that he would not practice as a Chartered Accountant until the next hearing. The petitioner contended that despite this statement, the respondent had advertised himself as a Chartered Accountant in April and May 2016, thus violating the commitment made to the Court.

The Court examined the definition of "to be in practice" as per Section 2(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, which includes engaging in accountancy, offering auditing services, or holding oneself out as an accountant. The respondent was accused of running coaching classes for Chartered Accountant aspirants, but the Court noted that this did not amount to practicing as a Chartered Accountant under the Act.

Moreover, the respondent's use of "CA" in his name was considered valid as long as he was registered as a Chartered Accountant. The Court highlighted that the respondent had been awarded a punishment of reprimand, not suspension or removal, by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the contempt petition, stating that the respondent's actions did not constitute a wilful violation of the undertaking given to the Court. The petition was dismissed, and the next hearing date was canceled.