Disposed

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Sanjeev Sharma

Delhi HC9 Aug 2016CHAT.A.REF/6/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the Court addressed an indictment against a junior chartered accountant for auditing without prior written no-objection from the predecessor auditor. The Court found the omission procedural and trivial involving no moral turpitude.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the counsel issue a letter of caution to the respondent concerning the indictment.

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~R-5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: August 09, 2016

¶4

¶5

CHAT.A.REF.6/2011

¶6

COUNCIL OF INSTT OF CHARTERED ACC

¶7

OF INDIA .....Petitioner

¶8

Represented by: Mr.Rakesh Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr.Pulkit Aggarwal, Advocate

¶9

versus

¶10

SANJEEV SHARMA ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Isha Jain, Advocate for R-1

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

¶13

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This is a reference under sub-Section 5 of Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The indictment against the respondent is to have taken up the audit of a company, previous auditor whereof was one Sh.B.C.Bothra carrying on practice as a chartered accountant under the name of M/s.B.C.Bothra & Co., without obtaining a written no objection from Sh.B.C.Bothra. Complaint made by Sh.B.C.Bothra was that for the previous years audit conducted by him, auditor fee in sum of `35,000/- was outstanding.

¶15

The respondent claimed before the Disciplinary Committee of the

¶16

CHAT.A.REF.6/2011

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Institute of Chartered Accountants that he had obtained oral sanction from Sh.B.C.Bothra. During proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee it transpired that Sh.B.C.Bothra had received the outstanding audit fee.

¶19

When the report of the Disciplinary Committee was sent to the respondent for his comments he stated once again that he took up the audit upon a verbal assurance given by Mr.B.C.Bothra. He highlighted that Mr.B.C.Bothra had since received the outstanding remuneration for the audit conducted for the previous year. The respondent additionally pointed out that he had started his practice in the year 2001. The audit which he had undertaking without written consent of Sh.B.C.Bothra pertained to the year 2002. The respondent highlighted that this was the first assignment of audit undertaken by him.

¶20

The counsel in its 305 meeting held from 18^th to 20^th April, 2011, considered the report of the Disciplinary Committee and recommended that the appropriate penalty would be a reprimand. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent urges that even a reprimand, which may not be having any financial repercussion, would be a penalty enough to cast a shadow upon the character and integrity of the respondent. Learned counsel draws our attention to a communication sent by the Institute of Chartered Accountant, wherein on an indictment, letter of caution was issued as the remedial measure.

¶21

Noting that there is no moral turpitude involved; there is no misadventure involved; the respondent was only one year into practice and the omission is procedural and fairly trivial, we dispose of the reference directing that the counsel would issue a letter of caution to the respondent

¶22

CHAT.A.REF.6/2011

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

concerning the indictment in respect whereof instant reference has been made.

¶25

No costs.

¶26

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

¶27

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE

AUGUST 09, 2016

mamta

CHAT.A.REF.6/2011

Page 3 of 3

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Sanjeev Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Sanjeev Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surender Singh Dalal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Varun Goel Vs Anshu Gupta (Goel)

Dipak Arora & Anr. Vs Vijay Bhushan Arora & Anr.

M/S J M Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishna Sachdev & Ors.

Shruti Chopra Vs Kapil Chorpa & Anr.

Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 Vs Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium