9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was frivolous and the papers relating to the case had been accordingly filed. The Petitioner has also prayed that the complaint made by the Petitioner against the 1st Respondent shall be decided after complying with the principles of natural justice. 3. The Petitioner was one of the partners of M/s. AAP Construction Company (hereinafter referred to as the said firm) having partners viz. (1) Atlanta Ltd. (2) PBA Infrastructure Ltd. and (3) Ameya Developers Pvt. Ltd. The partnership came into existence by Deed of Partnership executed by the partners on 1st February, 2002. On 1st November, 2004 the Petitioner retired from the said firm. On retirement of the Petitioner, dispute arose between the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bitrator made an Award on 14th March, 2007. In the said Award, the Learned Arbitrator accepted the figures as reflected in the balance-sheet which was audited by the 1st Respondent and was duly signed by the other two partners of the said firm. The Learned Arbitrator accepted the balance-sheet of the firm based on books of accounts maintained in the regular course duly audited by the 1st Respondent. The Arbitrator also gave a finding that inspite of the repeated opportunity given to cross examine the witness examined by M/s. Atlanta Ltd. who had produced balance-sheet of the firm audited by the 1st Respondent was not cross examined by the Petitioner herein. The record produced in this proceedings indicate that a reference was made to the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 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 filed by the Petitioner also was furnished to the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent in the said comments specifically pleaded that the accounts submitted by the two partners of the firm and audited by the 1st Respondent had been accepted and confirmed in the Award given by the Arbitrator. 9. The Petitioner initially filed Appeal (Stamp) No. 8859 of 2009 in this Court challenging the Order dated 7th October, 2008 passed by the Council of the Institute. The said Appeal was allowed to be withdrawn by an Order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with Regulation 12(11)(ii) of the Regulations. Regulations framed by the Institute under enabling powers under Section 30 of the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 which provides for procedure and enquiry before the Disciplinary Committee have to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament and have statutory force. The Petitioner has not challenged the validity of the Regulation framed by the Institute in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce-sheet of the firm based on the books of the accounts maintained in the regular course duly audited by the 1st Respondent and accepted the figures as reflected in the said balance-sheet. 13. Considering the fact that the dispute between the partners in respect of the accounts of the said firm was referred to the arbitrator who was an independent person and the said arbitrator looking to the entire evidence has accepted the balance-sheet audited by the 1st Respondent as correct, we see no reason to interfere with 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
