Shri Manish Agarwal v. The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42271-DB( RP(No.(572(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010819822025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(7 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH(

AND((

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(VENKATESH(NAIK(T(

REVIEW(PETITION(NO.(572(OF(2025( ( BETWEEN:((

( , SHRI,MANISH,AGARWAL, ACA,,,

THH.NO.313,,DEEP,6 ,MAIN,II,BLOCK,, HRBR,LAYOUT,KALYAN,NAGAR,,BANASWADI, BENGALURU,-,560,043., ,, PRESENTLY,RESIDING,AT:, , FLAT,G-701,,GOLDEN,SQUARE,CHS,,, SUNDER,NAGAR,,KALINA,,, SANTACRUZ,(EAST),,, Digitally MUMBAI,-,400098., signedtiby …PETITIONER,RAKSHA ,Location:0High

Courttiof (BY,SRI.,BASAVA,PRABHU,S.,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,ALONG,WITH, Karnataka ,,,,,,SRI.,SAMARTH,KASHYAP,,ADVOCATE,(V/C),), , AND:( (

1., THE,COUNCIL,OF,THE,INSTITUTE,OF,CHARTERED, ACCOUNTANTS,,OF,INDIA,, INDRAPRASTHA,MARG,,, NEW,DELHI,-,110002., REPRESENTED,BY,DEPUTY,SECRETARY.,, ,

2., UNION,OF,INDIA,,

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, 5TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. SRIRANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., CGSC, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (P/H))

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW AND RECALL THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 PASSED IN CIVIL PETITION NO.53 OF 2014 AT ANNEXURE A. RESTORE CIVIL PETITION NO.53/2014 TO FILE AND AFFORD THE PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

This review petition has been filed only with the limited ground that the review petitioner/respondent No.1 was not served with the notice of the petition, which is evident from the order sheet and office notings regarding service. As the respondent No.1 had left Bangalore and his whereabouts were

not known, the petitioner made an application for substituted service by paper publication.

¶2This Court, by order dated 03.12.2021, allowed the application for substituted service by publishing notice in two daily newspapers i.e., 'The Hindu', English daily newspaper, Bengaluru edition and 'Prajavani' Kannada Daily Newspaper, Bengaluru edition. As the paper publication was carried out and on the date fixed when nobody put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, he was proceeded ex-parte and impugned order came to be passed.

¶3It is relevant to mention here that respondent No.1 had already left Bangalore and he was staying in Bombay when the notice was issued and paper publication was made. As the paper publication of notice was made only in the Bangalore edition of 'The Hindu' and 'Prajavani' Daily Newspapers, obviously, respondent No.1 would not have noticed the same, inasmuch as, he was in Bombay and the notice was published only in the local News papers of Bengaluru edition.

¶4Sri. S Sriranga, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Sumana Naganand, appearing for respondent No.1 has stoutly denied the assertion made by Mr.Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior Counsel for review petitioner/respondent No.1 and submitted that when the petition was filed, he was staying in Bangalore and he never intimated shifting of his residence to Bombay as per the rules. Had he intimated shifting of his residence to Bombay, the notice would have been served at Bombay. Respondent No.1 is taking advantage of his own wrong and therefore, this Court should decline to review the order in question.

¶5We have considered the submissions. Be that as it may, it is only the question of re-hearing the petition. Admittedly, the petitioner/respondent No.1 was not served with the notice and no one should go unheard when his interests or rights are affected by court proceedings.

¶6In view of the aforesaid fact, we are of the view that it is a case for the review of the order, which is an exparte and therefore in exercise of our jurisdiction, we review the order

dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Petition No.53/2014 and restore the petition to its original number.

¶7We therefore recall/review the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Civil Petition No.53/2014 and restore the petition to its original number to be heard finally on 27.08.2026 at

4.00 p.m.

Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2