9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the prima facie view of the Institute on the complaint filed by the Petitioner. The fact that the Award made by the arbitratior has been set aside subsequently and restored to the file of the arbitrator for fresh Award, would not vitiate the prima facie view taken by the Institute during the period the Award was subsisting. In view thereof,there is no need to go into the issue raised by the Petitioner regarding the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and/or alleged procedure while conducting enquiry by the Institute in these proceedings - Award for a limited purpose so as to find out whether there was any substance in the complaint made by the Petitioner against the 1st Respondent and have not expressed our view on merits of the award - Rule is discharged. - WRIT PETITION NO. 5605 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2012 - J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. Mrs. Teja Katdare for the Petitioner. Shailesh Shah and A.S. Doctor for the Respondent. JUDGMENT R.D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing an Order dated 7th Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not registered, certified that the firm was registered without ascertaining the facts. The said firm, appointed Mr. Shadilal Chopra as a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties arising out of the Deed of Partnership dated 1st July, 2002. Before the Arbitrator, all the three partners including the Petitioner filed separate Statement of Claims. Various issues were raised before the Arbitrator by the parties. One of the issue was regarding the total profit and loss of the firm that would come to the share of each of the partner including the Petitioner. 6. During the pendency of the said arbitration proceedings, on 3rd November, 2006, the Petitioner filed a complaint against the 1st Respondent before the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the institute) alleging various acts of misconduct and praying for disciplinary action. In the said complaint, reference was made to the then pending arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Shadilal Chopra. The Petitioner submitted some of the correspondence exchanged between the Petitioner with the 1st Respondent alongwith its complaint. M/s. Atlanta Ltd. relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplainant. The Institute informed that the matter would be placed before the Council for its prima-facie opinion and the decision that would be taken by the Council would be indicated to the parties concerned. 8. On 7th October, 2008, the Institute informed the Petitioner that the Complaint, Written Statement of the 1st Respondent, Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner and the Comments of the 1st Respondent were considered by the Council and it was prima facie of the opinion that the 1st Respondent was not guilty of any professional or other misconduct and therefore the papers relating to the case had been filed. The Petitioner was further informed that since the Council was of the opinion that the complaint filed by the Petitioner was frivolous, deposit of Rs.100/- made by the Petitioner had been forfeited in terms of Regulation 12(4) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. The Petitioner thereafter applied to the Institute for various information under the Right To Information Act, 2005. The Institute furnished such information to the Petitioner vide letters dated 14th November, 2008, 5th February, 2009. The copy of the comments made by the 1st Respondent from the rejoinder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present petition. (b) On 16th April, 2008, after considering the Written Statement, Rejoinder, Comments alongwith the Complaint, the President of the Institute prepared a Note that no further papers were required. (c) The Institute has placed reliance on the Arbitration Award dated 14th March, 2007 delivered in the dispute filed by the Petitioner and other two partners in which one of the partners had produced the balance-sheet for the Financial Year 2004-05 audited by the 1st Respondent. (d) The Arbitrator who was an independent person, after considering the evidence on record accepted the balance-sheet of the firm based on the books of the accounts audited by the 1st Respondent as correct. He submitted that the rejection of the complaint made by the Petitioner thus cannot be faulted with, once the balance-sheet audited by the 1st Respondent is accepted as correct. 12. We have heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent and have perused the record produced by the parties including the Award delivered by the Arbitrator on 14th March, 2007. One of the issue in the arbitration proceedings was about the determination of the profit and loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
