Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Indraprastha Marg, New v. Shri M.D.Loya
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The disciplinary committee respondent carrying obligations report submitted concerning correct. The disciplinary committee, accordingly, professional misconduct within meaning section 21 Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 clauses 7 8 I second schedule Act out. The Council accepted the said report and has recommended that the respondent…
- Para 66. We are, thus, satisfied reprimand shall meet the ends of justice. We dispose of this reference accordingly. J.) (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.
Judgment
a his part. He, therefore, requested for lenient view.
The disciplinary committee respondent carrying obligations report submitted concerning correct. The disciplinary committee, accordingly, professional misconduct within meaning section 21 Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 clauses 7 8 I second schedule Act out. The Council accepted the said report and has recommended that the respondent be reprimanded. FDRs 3 In stated above, respondent seriously challenged calling physical verification concerned
before signing report. In matter, finding recorded disciplinary committee accepted Council respondent guilty professional misconduct does not require any deep scrutiny and and we concur with the said finding.
The respondent candid before disciplinary committee respondent a admitting lapse. The long-standing chartered accountant practice respondent appears obligations omitted auditor properly. The respondent informed either before the lapse in question or thereafter has occurred.
We are, thus, satisfied reprimand shall meet the ends of justice. We dispose of this reference accordingly. J.) (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 — s. 21.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Aug 2004. The bench was R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.