9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of removal of the name of the respondent No.1 from the Register of Members for a period of five years in each of the two cases. 2. Notice of each of the petitions was issued. None appears for the respondent No.1 in either of the two petitions. We may notice that the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings before the petitioner Institute including before the Disciplinary Committee of the petitioner Institute insofar as the complaint subject matter of Chat.A.Ref. No.4/2014 is concerned. However, the respondent No.1 in the complaint subject matter of Chat.A.Ref. No.6/2014, though replied to the initial show cause notice but did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings or submit any representation on the report of the Disciplinary Committee, despite opportunity. On our enquiry it is informed that the respondent No.1 is alive. In these circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to await the respondent No.1 any further and have heard the counsel for the petitioner Institute. 3. The complaint (dated 17th September, 1998) subject matter of Chat.A.Ref. No.4/2014 was made to the petitioner Institute by the Delhi Stock Exchange (DSE). The same related to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect, though would call upon the petitioner Institute to bestow consideration on the said aspect and to in future ensure that such complaints are handled expeditiously. 6. The Disciplinary Committee constituted qua complaint subject matter of Chat.A.Ref. No.4/2014 in its report dated 10th February, 2012, found: (i) that certain persons namely Mr. Surinder Malik, Mr. Virender Kumar, Mr. Ashok Verma, Mr. Subhash Kumar Malik, Mr. Anil Sehrawat, Mr. Harpal Rathi and Mr. Rajender Singh were desirous of starting a lucky draw / chit company and contacted the respondent No. 1 who advised them to incorporate a private limited company; (ii) that the requisite memorandum was stamped at Chandigarh and the documents pertaining to incorporation were handed over to the respondent No. 1 in March, 1990; (iii) that however the plans of the aforesaid persons to start the company ran into rough weather and they informed the respondent No.1 that he should not act further in getting the company incorporated; (iv) that however on 24th October, 1997 it was discovered that the respondent No.1, contrary to the instructions of the aforesaid persons and by forging their signatures, went ahead to inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said company including its fraudulent incorporation, fraudulent public issue and fraudulent operations; (d) that the addresses of all the three Directors of the said company were found to be fictitious and the respondent No.1 inspite of being called upon could not prove their identity; (e) that in fact the company was never found to have existed on the address filed of its registered office; (f) that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also prosecuted the respondent No.1 on the same grounds and allegations in the Court of ACMM, Karkardooma, Delhi but the respondent No.1 was acquitted pursuant to entering into the compromise with the investors and consequent lack of evidence; (g) that the undertaking given by the respondent No.1 as Lead Manager to SEBI was totally false and just to cheat the general public and to induce them to invest their money in the public issue of such a company which was fake and bogus and the Directors shown of which itself were also not in existence; (h) that the respondent No.1 had failed to prove that the information given to SEBI in the prospectus was true. The Disciplinary Committee thus concluded that the respondent No.1 is guilty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. B. Mukherjea AIR 1958 SC 72 (though under the old Section 21). 11. We have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner Institute, whether the punishment imposed in each of the case of removal of name from the Register for a period of five years is to run concurrently. 12. The counsel for the petitioner Institute has replied in the negative. 13. We however do not find any indication to the said effect in the minutes of the 324th meeting of the petitioner Institute held on 10th and 11th April, 2013. Since the recommendation qua both the complaints has been made in the same meeting, it would have been appropriate for the petitioner Institute to, when at the same time dealing with the two complaints against the same member and recommending the same punishment in both i.e. of removal of the name from the Register, to at least clarify, whether the said punishment is to run concurrently or not. However, the misconduct of which the respondent No.1 has been found guilty being gross in both the complaints, we this time around, accept the statement of the Advocate for the petitioner Institute and clarify that the puni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
