✦ Bombay High Court · 13 Aug 2004

Institute of Chartered Accountants v. Shri P.V.Mehta

R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR4 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. We, accordingly, concur finding recorded disciplinary committee accepted Council respondent guilty 4 professional misconduct within meaning clause 7 of part I of the second schedule of the said Act.
  • Para 77. We, accordingly, accept recommendation Council respondent be removed from the register of members for a period of one month. (R.M.LODHA, J.) J.) J.) (R.M.LODHA, (R.M.LODHA, DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.

Judgment

Shri instance issued Kamal statements recorded Kanodia, Customs Act, Proprietor 1962, confessed Associates, Chartered According Complainant-Department, against & (7), Part II of the Second Schedule to the Respondent (8) (9) attract Clauses I Part (2), (5), Clause (i) action (6), clearances, M/s. Laxmi monetary certificates, imports perpetuating January, January, another N. Shri M/s. Accountants 3 Chartered Accountants Act, 1949."

3.

In examination before disciplinary committee, respondent admitted verify verify turnover M/s. concerns viz. M/s. United Mechanical Works, Laxmi Engineering Works others. explanation issued performance certificate relying Mr. referred internal auditor concerns. According His export Kanodia respondent, Mr. Kanodia brought certificates signed certificates. Incidentally notice statement recorded section 108 Customs Act, respondent admitted certificates issued without verifying expected relevant records examine documents correctness a professional chartered accountant. He signed the said certificates without knowing the contents to be true.

4.

These eloquent enough respondent guilty professional misconduct clause 7 of part I of second schedule and elaborate discussion is not necessary.

5.

We, accordingly, concur finding recorded disciplinary committee accepted Council respondent guilty 4 professional misconduct within meaning clause 7 of part I of the second schedule of the said Act.

6.

The Council recommended respondent removed register members period month. The respondent chosen appear show-cause recommendation Council accepted us. Looking misconduct committed respondent, satisfied the recommendation of the Council cannot be said to be disproportionate.

7.

We, accordingly, accept recommendation Council respondent be removed from the register of members for a period of one month. (R.M.LODHA, J.) 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 — ss. 21, 21(5), 22.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments