9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26th September, 2017 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India under sub-section (3) of Section 21B of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") read with Rule 19 (1) of the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and other misconduct and conduct of cases) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), Mr. Praveen Kumar Kanungo, a Practicing Company Secretary, the Appellant herein, against whom a complaint was filed by Shri Pawan Kumar Shadija, one of the Promoter Directors of M/s Akruti Trexim Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), in form (I) on 14th January, 2014 under Section 21 of the Act read with sub-r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint under Section 21 of the Act read with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Company Secretaries (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 against the Appellant namely Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaunungo alleging the following:- i. That Mr. Praveen Kumar Kanungo had not exercised due diligence while certifying two Forms 32, due to which name of four Directors, i.e., (a) Pawan Kumar Shadija, (b) Ms. Sandhya Shadija, (c) Mr. Akash Kumar Shadija; and (d) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Shadija of Akruti Trexim Private Limited were removed from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs; ii. That he has given wrong certification of Form 20(b) pertaining to M/s Akruti Trexim Private Limited for the financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and at the time of final hearing on 25th February, 2018, wherein the Appellant along with his Counsel Mr. Natwar Rai was present, submitted before us that the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Committee to the Appellant is not justified considering the nature of the professional misconduct on the part of the Appellant as alleged and awarded by the Disciplinary Committee in other cases of the violation of the said clause or for the similar nature of Professional misconduct, wherein the Disciplinary Committee of the Company Secretaries of India awarded the punishment of either reprimand or reprimand with fine. Whereas, in this case the Disciplinary Committee awarded an exorbitant punishment of removal of the name of the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of this final Order. In case of failure of the Respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- within the stipulated time period, her name shall be removed from the Register of Members of the ICSI for a period of 30 days. ICSI/DC/313/2015 Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Ms. Seema Sharma, ACS 25258 CP No. 11118 28-04-2017 Certified Form DIR-12 Reprimand ICSI/DC/156/2012 Pramod Khosla Vs. Sital Prasad Swain 28-04-2017 Certified Form DIR-12 Reprimand and Fine Rs. 5,000/- 8. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Institute did not object for review of quantum of punishment and submitted before us that the Authority may decide the same considering the merit of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne month, after sixty days from the date of issue of this order. 11. Needless to mention that in case the Appellant has already deposited that amount of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Institute, the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- be refunded to him within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order. 12. The Authority also wishes to advise the Disciplinary Committee to keep uniformity in awarding the punishment in similar nature of professional misconduct in the interest of justice in future, of course the ultimate impact of the negligence caused by the Appellant be given the appropriate weightage besides considering other facts and circumstances involved in the matter for deciding the punishment for violation of any professi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
