Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Part 1 of First Schedule - Clause 11

  1. #1

    Default Part 1 of First Schedule - Clause 11

    Clause (11)

    engages in any business or occupation other than the profession of chartered accountants unless permitted by
    the Council so to engage:

    Provided that nothing contained herein shall disentitle a chartered accountant from being a director of a
    Company, (not being a managing director or a whole time director), unless he or any of his partners is interested in
    such company as an auditor; This is a provision introduced to restrain a member in practice from engaging himself in any business or occupation other than that of Chartered Accountant except when permitted by the Council to be so engaged. The objective is to restrain members from carrying on any other business in conjunction with the profession of accountancy and
    combining such work with any business which is not in keeping with the dignity of the profession. Another reason for the introduction of such prohibition is that a Chartered Accountant, if permitted to enter into all kinds of business, would be able to advertise for his other business and thereby secure an unfair advantage in his professional practice.

    The Council, on a very careful consideration of the matter, has formulated Regulations 190A & 191 which are reproduced below,
    specifying the activities with which a member in practice can associate himself with or without the permission of the Council.


    190A. Chartered Accountant in practice not to engage in any other business or occupation

    A Chartered Accountant in practice shall not engage in any business or occupation other than the profession of accountancy,
    except with the permission granted in accordance with a resolution of the Council.
    Please refer to Appendix (9) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, (see Appendix-‘F’).

    191. Part-time employments a Chartered Accountant in practice may accept
    Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 190A but subject to the control of the Council, a Chartered Accountant in practice may act as a liquidator, trustee, executor, administrator, arbitrator, receiver, adviser or representative for costing, financial or taxation matter, or may take up an appointment that may be made by the Central Government or a State Government or a court of law or any other legal authority or may act as a Secretary in his professional capacity, provided his employment is not on a salary-cum-full-time basis.

    The Council has considered the question of permitting members in practice to become a Director, Managing Director, full time/Executive Director etc. and related issues and the following decisions have been taken:-

    As regards the question of permitting a member in practice to be a Director, Promoter/Promoter- Director, Subscriber to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of any Company, it was decided that:

    (a) Director of a Company
    (i) The expression “Director Simplicitor” means an ordinary/simple Director.
    (ii) A member in practice is permitted generally to be a Director Simplicitor in any Company including a board-managed
    Company and as such he is not required to obtain any specific permission of the Council in this behalf unless he or
    any of his partners is interested in such Company as an auditor, irrespective of whether he and/or his relatives hold
    substantial interest in that Company.

    (b) Promoter/Promoter-Director There is no bar for a member to be a promotor/signatory to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of any Company. There is also no bar for such a promoter/signatory to be a Director Simplicitor of that Company irrespective of whether the objects of the Company include areas which fall within the scope of the profession of Chartered
    Accountants. Therefore members are not required to obtain specific permission of the Council in such cases. It must be clarified that under Section 25 of the Chartered Accountants Act, no Company can practise as a Chartered Accountant.
    Item Nos. 4 of the Specific Resolution would be equally applicable to member carrying out the activities referred to therein in his capacity as Karta/representative of HUF provided he is not actively engaged in carrying on such activities.


  2. #2

    Default The decisions of the Council / High Courts on this clause are given below

    A Chartered Accountant engaged himself in carrying on a business known as Shivaji Engineering Works. Held he was guilty of professional misconduct under the clause.

    (D.S. Sadri vs. B.M. Pithawalla - Page 300 of Vol.V of the Disciplinary Cases - decided on 14th, 15th, 16th & 17th September, 1977).

    A Chartered Accountant in practice entered into partnership with persons who were not the members of the Institute, for the purpose of carrying on business. The share of the Chartered Accountant in the profit and losses was 25%. He was to take part in the business and was entitled to represent the firm before Govt. authorities etc. He was operating the Bank account of the firm, was receiving moneys from the customers and was also looking after the affairs of the partnership - Held he was guilty of professional misconduct under the clause, as he was engaged in the business, without the permission of the Council.

    (K.S. Dugar in Re: - Page 1 of Vol. VI(2) of the Disciplinary Cases - decided on 2nd, 3rd and 4th April 1980).

    A member in practice was authorised by a resolution of the Board of directors of a Company held on 4.9.81 to look after the day to day affairs of the Company and other Directors were requested to give maximum co-operation to him. Also the member held more than 51% of the shares of the said Company. Later on 8.5.82, he applied to the Council for permission to hold the office of the Executive Chairman of the said Company. It was held on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case that during the period 4.9.81 to 8.5.82 the member had engaged himself in “other occupation” without the permission of the Council and was found guilty in terms of this Clause.

    (M.K. Abrol and S.S. Bawa vs. V.P. Vijh - Page 256 of Vol. VI(2) of Disciplinary Cases - Decided on 11th, 12th and 13th February, 1988)

    A member having a certificate of practice and having 2 Articled Clerks with him was simultaneously working as a Financial Controller of a Company without the permission of the Council. He was held to be guilty in terms of this Clause in so far as he was engaged in other occupation without the permission of the Council.

    (S.K. Kaul vs. S.C. Mangal - Page 132 of Vol. VI(2) of Disciplinary Cases - Decided on 9th and 10th August, 1988)

    A member as a Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family entered into partnership business for a short period with non-Chartered Accountants for engaging in business other than the profession of
    Chartered Accountants, without prior permission of the Council. Therefore, he was found guilty in terms of clauses (4) and (11).

    (R.D. Bhatt vs. K.B. Parikh - Page 191 of Vol. VI(2) of Disciplinary Cases - Decided on 15th, 16th and 17th December, 1988)

    The Bombay High Court in WP No. 4906 of 1985 decided on 9th February, 1989 has held that the prohibition to enter into any partnership with any person other than a Chartered Accountant under Clause (4) of Part I of the First Schedule is absolute but not so under Clause (11). According to the Court, Clause (11) enables the Chartered Accountant to engage in any business or any occupation other than the profession of Chartered Accountancy provided the Council grants permission to engage in such business or occupation. According to the Court, it is obvious that the Council desired to retain the power to permit a Chartered Accountant to engage in any business or occupation which may be incidental or would be useful for carrying on the profession of chartered accountancy. Regulation 166 reiterates what Clause (11) provides. In pursuance of Regulation 166, the Council of the Institute has resolved that permission would be granted to the Chartered Accountants engaged in any business or occupation other than the profession of chartered accountancy in the cases set out in the resolution (Appendix 9). Clause (4) and (11) contemplate two distinct and separate contingencies and Clause (4) cannot be so read as to make Clause (11) and the power retained by the Council to grant permission redundant.

    (Nalin S. Sualy vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India - Bombay High Court WP No. 4906 of 1985 dated 9th February, 1989)

    While dealing with the reasonableness of Clause (11), the Allahabad High Court in CWP No. 1823 of 1988 has decided on 10th July, 1990 that it is always open to place reasonable restriction or to regulate any professional activity. Such restrictions are not new; they are to be found in many fields where it is provided that a person practising any particular profession shall not be engaged in any other business. According to the Court, it may be necessary to have such regulatory provision so that proper and undivided attention of the person practising a profession is available to those to whom they are supposed to render their services. Such professional services should be available to the needy with full and proper care and attention. The profession also requires to maintain certain standard of efficiency which it may not be possible to acquire if a person has his interest somewhere else.

    (Iqbal Hamid vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India - Allahabad High Court - W.P. No. 1823 of 1988 dated 10th July, 1990)

    Where a Chartered Accountant had not disclosed to the Institute at any time about his engagement as a proprietor of a non-Chartered Accountant’s firm while holding certificate of practice and had not
    furnished particulars of his engagement as a Director of a Company despite various letters of the Institute which remained unreplied. Held that he was guilty under clause (11) of Part I and clauses (1) and (3) of Part III of the First Schedule.

    (P.S. Rao in Re: - Page 110 of Vol. VII(2) of the Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 9th to 11th April, 1992).

    Where a Chartered Accountant was Karta of the HUF and was engaged in the business of a firm without permission of the Council. Held that he was guilty of professional misconduct under the Clause.

    (V. Krishnamoorthy vs. T.T. Krishnaswami - Page 192 of Vol.VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 27th to 29th September, 1992).

    Where a Chartered Accountant had already held employment with a Company without prior permission of the Institute as required under the Regulations. Held that he was guilty under the clause.

    (R.K. Jain in Re: - Page 252 of Vol.VII(2) of the Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 10th to 12th June, 1993).

    Where a Chartered Accountant had held a salaried employment as Assistant Manager (Finance & Accounts) in addition to the practice of chartered accountancy without obtaining permission of the
    Institute as required under Regulations. Held he was guilty held under the clause.

    (Anil Kumar in Re: - Page 330 of Vol.VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 16th to 18th January, 1994)

    Where a Chartered Accountant had offered to help the Complainant in disposing of odd lot shareholding, sold the shares of the Complainant at much lower rates than the prevailing market
    rates, had sent to the Complainant contract notes etc. and the said Chartered Accountant was personally involved in the share transfers and broker’s business besides his professional activities.
    Held that he was guilty under the clause.

    (Pradeep R. Ghatge vs. Ashvin Bajaria - Page 423 of Vol.VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 13th to 15th June, 1996)

    Where a Chartered Accountant in practice had engaged himself in other occupation as an LIC agent without obtaining permission of the Council. Held that he was held guilty under the clause.
    (Chief Commissioner (Admn.) & Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-I, Bangalore vs. H. Mohanlal Giriya - Page 443 of Vol.VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 13th to 15th June, 1996) A Chartered Accountant in practice had held full-time salaried employment with a Company without obtaining prior permission of the Council, as required under Regulation 190A of the Chartered
    Accountants Regulations 1988. He was held guilty under the Clause for being engaged in employment without the permission of the Council.

    (R.K. Verma in Re: - Page 650 of Vol. VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 16th to 18th January, 1997).

    The charge against a Chartered Accountant, inter alia, was that he had more than 20% shareholdings in a finance and management consultancy private Company, and he could not enter nto the business of brokering. It was held that he had to be considered to be a Managing Director or a whole-time Director under the provisions of Section 2(26) of the Companies Act, 1956, since he
    was entrusted with the whole or substantially the whole of the management of the affairs of the Company. Since he failed to obtain specific and prior approval of the Council for the above, he was held guilty under the Clause.

    (J.P. Gupta vs. T.C. Garg - Page 670 of Vol. VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 21st to 23rd July, 1997).

    A Chartered Accountant had entered into partnership in a firm with the husband of the Complainant and others and agreed to look after general administration, appointment of office staff, finance
    and legal matters of civil and taxation nature. He was held guilty of violation of Clause (11).

    (Satwant Kaur vs. Rakshit Khosla - Page 696 of Vol. VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 21st to 23rd July, 1997).

    The Complainant alleged that the Respondent had engaged in business and occupation other than the profession of Chartered Accountancy and carried on consultancy services under a name which though applied for by him was not approved by the Institute. Thus he was guilty under the Clause.

    (Amalendu Gupta vs. R.N. Kapur - Page 726 of Vol. VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 8th to 10th December, 1997).

    A Chartered Accountant had been in full-time employment in a Company besides holding Certificate of Practice without obtaining Institute’s permission and in the bank empanelment form, he had
    given declaration to the effect that he was not devoting any time to any occupation /vocation/business etc. other than the profession of Chartered Accountant. He was held guilty for violation of Clause (11) of Part I and Clause (1) of

    (N.K. Gupta in Re: - Council’s decision dated 1st to 4th July, 1998 - Page 1 of Volume VIII(2) of Disciplinary Cases).

    The Respondent entered into a partnership with the Complainant for running the business of manufacturing readymade garments. He was held guilty for violation of Clause (11).

    (D. Hemalatha vs. P.N. Malolan – Council’s decision dated 15th to 17th December, 1999 – Page 87 of Volume VIII(2) of Disciplinary Cases).

    Two members, while holding Certificate of Practice, had been in full time employment with an Insurance Company without obtaining the Institute’s permission to be so engaged. They also did not
    disclose the particulars of their full time salaried employment at the time of furnishing particulars in the prescribed Form for registration of the articled clerks. They were held inter alia guilty for violation of Clause (11) of Part I and Clause (1) of Part III of the First Schedule.

    (C.M. Mehrotra in Re: - Council’s decision dated 11th to 13th October, 1999, Page 76 of Volume VIII(2) of Disciplinary Cases and A.P. Gupta in Re:- Council’s decision dated 15th to 17th December, 1999, Page 134 of Volume VIII(2) of Disciplinary Cases).

    Where a Chartered Accountant was a partner in a business firm without disclosing his interest and obtaining permission from the Council of the Institute. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under the Clause.

    (R.K. Gupta of M/s Gupta Rajendra & Co. vs. M.G. Baig – Page 158 of Vol. VIII(2) of Disciplinary Cases decided by the Council on 1st to 3rd August, 2001)

    Where a Chartered Accountant was in full time employment with a Company and had continued his services even after intimating the Institute that he had resigned from service. He had shown himself
    in full time practice while applying for bank empanelment for 3 years. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (11) and Regulation 190A of Chartered Accountant Regulations 1988.

    (S.C. Srivastava in Re: – Page 194 of Volume VIII(2) of the Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 1st to 3rd August, 2001)

    A Chartered Accountant while in employment with a Corporation conveyed acceptance as statutory auditor to the complainant and declared that he was a full time practicing Chartered Accountant
    and not employed elsewhere. Held that the Chartered Accountant was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (11) for not obtaining permission of the Council for engaging himself in full time employment with the Corporation while holding Certificate of Practice.

    (The Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank vs. N.K. Chopra – Pages 271 of Volume VIII (2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 1st to 3rd August, 2001)

    A Chartered Accountant had engaged himself as a partner in two business firms and Managing Director in two Companies and was also holding Certificate of Practice without obtaining permission of
    the Institute. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under Clauses (4) and (11).

    (Harish Kumar in Re: – Pages 286 of Vol. VIII (2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 1st to 3rd August, 2001)

    A Chartered Accountant who was enrolled as a fellow member of the Institute disclosed in the form “entry of record” that he was engaged as partner of “M/s X Group of Magazines”. He was also
    working as a Director of “M/s. A & Co.”. On enquiry, the Respondent informed the Institute that he was engaged as a partner of the said M/s. X Group of Magazines since 1978. The Respondent had never disclosed about this even while he was holding Certificate of Practice in all these years and nor did he seek permission from the Institute to engage himself as a partner in any other occupation. Held that the Chartered Accountant was guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Rajkumar H. Advani in Re: - Pages 373 of Volume VIII (2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 1st to 3rd August, 2001. Also published in the December 2002 issue of Institute’s journal at page 627)

    The Souvenir published on the occasion of “Navaratrotsav” by ‘Parel Paschim Vibhag Va Tata Mills Welfare Centre 1991’ contained an advertisement with a caption “With best compliments from Abhiraj R. Ranawat B.Com., A.C.A. (Chartered Accountant) Share and Stock Sub-Broker. The said advertisement also contained office timing 8 A.M. to 10 A.M., telephone nos. of market and residence and addresses of office and market. Arising out of the above, the Respondent inter alia held guilty in not taking Institute’s permission for engaging in other occupation i.e. share and stock sub-broker while holding certificate of practice in violation of Clause (11) of Part I of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (A.R. Ranawat in Re: - Pages 414 of Vol. VIII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 26th to 28th August, 2001)

    While holding Certificate of Practice the Chartered Accountant had been in full time employment. However, he did not obtain the Institute’s permission to be so engaged as required under Regulation 190A of the Chartered Accountant Regulation 1988. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

    (N.K. Malhotra in Re: - Pages 443 of Volume VIII (2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 26th to 28th August, 2001)

    Where a Chartered Accountant was holding Certificate of Practice and was also in salaried employment elsewhere without obtaining the permission of the Council. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (S.K. Ahuja in Re: - Pages 496 of Vol. VIII (2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 6th to 8th December, 2001)

    A Chartered Accountant had helped private Financial Services Company through his friends in Mumbai to investment in equity and they had invested to the tune of Rs. 30 Lakhs for a limited
    company. The Financial Services Company which was a consultancy firm was run by his wife. Held that he was guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (M. Hariharan in Re: - Pages 1 of Vol. IX-2A–21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 2nd to 4th July, 2002)

    Where a Chartered Accountant was doing the brokership of shares apart from holding Certificate of Practice without taking permission from the Council. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional
    misconduct under Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

    (A.C. Sharma & Mrs. Indu Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Sharma Share Trading Co. vs. Sandeep Abbot – Page 22 of Vol. IX – 2A – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 11th to 14th
    September 2002)

    Where a Chartered Accountant entered into partnership for export of garments without obtaining permission from the Institute. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under
    Clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Mrs. Vimla Manchanda vs. Ashok Kumar Malik - Page 38 of Vol.IX-2A-21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 11th to 14th September, 2002)

    The Respondent accepted the position of Director and of auditor of a Company for the year 1992 from May 1992 till March 1993. It was argued that the Respondent audited the accounts of the
    Company only after March 1993 when he was not the Director of the Company. However, the appointment of the auditor, having been made when he was director of the Company, the Respondent was disqualified under Section 226(3)(b) of the Companies Act and that he should not have accepted the position as auditor being the Director of the Company. Held that the Respondent was guilty under the Clause for not having obtained the prior permission of the Council for engaging himself in other occupation, as director of the Company despite of the fact that he was interested in the Company as auditor and has also contravened the provisions of section 224-A read with section 226 of the Companies Act, 1956.

    (A.V. Deshmukh vs. J.D. Sanghvi – Page 491 of Vol. IX – 2A – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 26th to 28th December 2002)

    The Respondent was in full time employment with a Company without obtaining permission of the Institute besides holding Certificate of Practice. Held that the Respondent was inter alia guilty under the Clause.

    (Arvind Kumar in Re: – Page 553 of Vol. IX – 2A – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 26th to 28th December 2002)

    The Respondent, while in employment with a Company, passed Chartered Accountancy Examination and sought permission in the year 1987 to do practice, on a part time basis from the Complainant Company. While still in employment, he wrote a letter to the Institute that he had resigned, which was false and misleading. Held that the Respondent was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under the Clause.

    (Managing Director, A.P. Handicrafts Dev. Corpn. Ltd. vs. A. Bhimeswara Swamy – Page 590 of Vol. IX – 2A – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 7th to 8th & 24th to 25th April 2003)

    Where a Chartered Accountant acted as karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) without taking prior permission of the Council. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct under the clause.

    (B.L. Asawa, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Delhi vs. P.K.Garg – Page 728 of Vol. IX – 2A – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 16th to 18th Sept. 2003)

    Where a Chartered Accountant continued to remain as a Director of a Company when one of his partners was interested in that Company as an auditor. Held that he was guilty of professional misconduct by continuing to hold office as a Director of the Company,


    (Registrar of Companies, West Bengal vs. K.C. Lunawat – Page 819 of Vol. IX-2A-21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 16th to 18th September, 2003)

    The Respondent was engaged in business of Share Dealer and Financial Advisor in which he was sole proprietor and was also practicing as CA from the same address. Held that the Chartered Accountant was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Chatar Lal Mantri vs. Vinod Kumar Agarwal – Page 869 of Vol. IX – 2A – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 16th to 18th September, 2003)

    The Respondent who was a partner in a C.A. firm besides being in employment was also holding Certificate of Practice without taking prior permission of the Institute. Held that the Chartered
    Accountant was guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Sudesh Pandit in Re: – Page 882 of Vol. IX – 2A – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases–Council’s decision dated 16th to 18th Sept. 2003)

    Where a Chartered Accountant had been carrying on business on “Share Market” at the Calcutta Stock Exchange being a member of the said exchange and was also holding Certificate of Practice
    without taking prior permission of the Institute. Held that he was guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (S.K. Sharma vs. V.K. Kandoi – Page 122 of Vol. IX – 2B – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 2nd to 4th February, 2004)

    Where a Chartered Accountant was engaged in business other than the profession of Chartered Accountancy without taking prior permission of the Institute. Held that he was guilty of professional
    misconduct within the meaning of Clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Sri Nath Prasad vs. Vineet Aggarwal – Page 23 of Vol. IX – 2B – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 2nd to 4th February, 2004)

    Where a Chartered Accountant was engaged in business of purchase and sale of imported glasses other than profession of Chartered Accountant without taking prior permission of the Institute. Held that he was inter alia guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Chintamany Abhyankar in Re: – Page 53 of Vol. IX – 2B – 21(4) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 2nd to 4th February, 2004)


    A member, without surrendering her certificate of practice, and without obtaining prior permission from the Council of the ICAI, accepted the job of a full time lecturer and as HOD (18 hrs per
    week) in a College. The Council held that the member guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule read with Sections 21 and 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Saraswati Gurunath Joshi vs. Himangi S. Prabhu - Page 555 of Vol. X – 2A – 21(4) as decided on 21st June, 2006, 260th Meeting of the Council)

    A member while employed with the Complainant Company as Chief Accountant had not taken permission of the Institute to engage himself in employment while holding Certificate of Practice.
    The Council held him guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

    (Abdul Aziz Mohd. Khan, Director of M/s Precision Dies and Tools Mfg. Co. vs. Rajesh Laddha - Page 537 of Vol. X – 2A – 21(4) as decided on 4th February, 2006, 257th Meeting Of The Council)
    A Chartered Accountant’s wife was made Chairperson of a

    Company and the Company and the respondent firm operated from same premises. The respondent as MD of Company, executed an agreement for appointment of the Complainant as a stockist and accepted deposit as security money. Respondent was held guilty under clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule.

    (Atul K. Gupta v. Swadesh C. Srivastava (25-CA(57)/99). - to be published later under Disciplinary Cases Volume X -2B–21(4). Council decision of 277th Meeting held in March – April 2008)

    A Chartered Accountant was whole time Director of a Company and managing day to day affairs of Company along with another person. Respondent was having Certificate of Practice. In equity
    issue, the respondent along with another person siphoned out the money leaving the shareholders valueless and also, solicited clients by advertisements. Held, the Respondent is guilty under Clause (11) of Part I of First Schedule and is not guilty of remaining charges.

    (Dr. Abhijit Sen, Alliance Credit & Investment Ltd. v. Parmanand Tiwari of M/s Tiwari & Co. (25–CA(75)/98) - to be published later under Disciplinary Cases Volume X -2B–21(4). Council decision of 278th Meeting held in May, 2008).

    A Chartered Accountant firm was working as Recovery Agent for Housing Finance Company without taking any permission from the Council to engage in any work other than the profession of Chartered Accountancy. The Respondent had written a letter to the Complainant for recovery of money wherein he represented himself as an agent of LIC housing Finance Ltd. He intimidated the Complainant with harsh and coercive method of recovery. Held that the Respondent is guilty under clauses (7) & (11) of Part I of First Schedule.

    (Yogesh Kumar Sharma v. O. P. Maheshwari of M/s O. P. Maheshwari & Co. (25-CA(212)/2003) - to be published later under Disciplinary Cases Volume X-2B–21(4). Council decision of 281st Meeting held in October, 2008)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • Register / Login to post new threads
  • Register / Login to post replies
  • Register / Login to post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •