Trideep Raj Bhandari v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

order.

¶46There shall be no order as to cost.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MARCH 06, 2020/Arya

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 25.11.2019 Date of Decision: 06.03.2020 + W.P.(C) 9032/2018 TRIDEEP RAJ BHANDARI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Anu Sura, Mr.Sameer Jain and Mr.Anant Gupta, Advs. versus INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This petition has been filed inter-alia praying for the following reliefs: "a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of the like nature thereby directing the Respondent to judiciously and expeditiously act on the Complaint No. 230/2014 filed by the Petitioner. b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of the like nature thereby directing the Respondent to set aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 (P-17) and to adjudicate Complaint No. 230A/2014 in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and while taking into consideration the evidence placed on record by the Petitioner, vide a reasoned order." Page 2 2. At the outset, it is noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not make any submissions in relation to the complaint No.PR 230/2014. In the written submissions, it is mentioned that after filing of the present Writ Petition, the said complaint is being adjudicated before the Disciplinary Committee under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Therefore, prayer "a" of the petition is disposed of as not pressed. 3. As far as the prayer "b" is concerned, the arguments have been confined only to the limited issue as to whether, while closing the complaint against the member, the Board of Discipline appointed under the Act has to communicate the reasons for the same to the complainant. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had invested in the shares of a company called "First Leasing Company of India Limited". The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), vide its letter dated 04.09.2013, called upon the Company to recast the Balance Sheet and the Profit and Loss Account for the period ending 31.03.2013 and 30.06.2013, as it was found that the same had overstated assets as well as earnings of the company. 5. The petition further alleges that by a letter dated 04.09.2013, the RBI also observed that an inspection of the Company had revealed that the company had been falsifying its books of accounts and other financial statements over several years, thereby portraying a positive net worth. 6. The RBI also issued a Press Release dated 13.09.2013 inter-alia prohibiting the Company from selling, transferring, creating charge or Page 3 mortgaging or dealing in any manner with its property and assets without prior written permission of the RBI. 7. It is further alleged that based on a complaint filed by the father of the petitioner, an FIR no.580/2013 has been registered with Police Station: Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 8. The petitioner filed a complaint bearing Complaint no.230A/2014 with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India against the Internal Auditors of the Company and a complaint bearing no.230/2014 against the Statutory Auditors of the Company. 9. The complaint, being Complaint no.230A/2014, has been closed by the respondent and its decision has been communicated to the petitioner vide the Impugned Communication dated 09.04.2018. The same reads as under: "I have been directed to inform you that your Complaint, Written Statement of the Respondent, your Rejoinder and additional documents along with the prima facie opinion formed by the Director (Discipline) under Rule 9(1) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, were considered by the Board of Discipline, The Board on consideration of the same, concurred with the reasons given against the charge(s) and thus, agreed with the prima facie opinion of the Director that the Respondent is NOT GUILTY of professional misconduct falling within the meaning