Chetan S/O Someshwar Padaki Vs the Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Chetan S/O Someshwar Padaki Vs the Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent, a Chartered Accountant, was guilty of professional misconduct by way of solicitation under Clause (6) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's contention that respondent No.2 did not reply to the Society's request but instead asked the Society to appoint him as auditor cannot be accepted; the record shows that a request was made by the Society and a suitable reply was given by respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

It can be safely concluded that there was no solicitation of any kind, and consequently the writ petition is devoid of merits.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is rejected.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) No. 106623 of 2019, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Jyoti Mulimani, J.), decided 07.04.2025: The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by respondent No.1 (Assistant Secretary, Disciplinary Directorate, ICAI) in PR-246/2015-DD/229/2015-BOD/274/2017, whereby the Board of Discipline had found respondent No.2 (CA Madhusudan Dattatreya Pise) not guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (6) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and had closed the case under Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007; the petitioner also sought a declaration that respondent No.2 was guilty of misconduct for alleged solicitation of audit appointment. Examining the Society's request letter of 16.08.2014 and respondent No.2's reply, the Court held that a request was made by the Society and a suitable reply was given by respondent No.2, that the petitioner's contrary contention could not be accepted, and that there was no solicitation of any kind. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, was rejected.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6106 WP No. 106623 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

WRIT PETITION NO. 106623 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

CHETAN S/O SOMESHWAR PADAKI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, R/O: 3B, FIRST FLOOR, OSWAL TOWER, JUBILEE CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DISCIPLINARY DIRECTORATE, THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA, ICAI BHAWAN, I.P. MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.

MADHUSUDAN DATTATREYA PISE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 216, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, VIDHANSOUDHA LAYOUT, LAGGERE, PEENYA, BENGLAURU-560 008. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6106 WP No. 106623 of 2019

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Shriharsha A.Neelopant., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.L.Patil., counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sangram S.Kulkarni., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by respondent No.1 in PR-246/2015-DD/229/2015-BOD/274/2017 vide Annexure-A and to hold that respondent No.2 is guilty of professional misconduct as per clause 6 of part 1 of 1^st Schedule to Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

The short controversy is about the alleged solicitation by the second respondent. Suffice it to note that the

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6106 WP No. 106623 of 2019

second respondent is a Chartered Accountant by profession. A communication was issued by the society on 16.08.2014 requesting the petitioner to express his interest for the appointment of Chartered Accountant for the audit year 2014 and 2015. To the said request, the petitioner suitably replied on 03.09.2014. The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent has not replied to the Society’s request, however, he requested the Society to appoint him as an auditor. The said contention cannot be accepted. The request letter of the Society and the reply given by the second respondent are furnished along with the Writ Petition and a careful perusal of the same depicts that a request was made by the Society and a suitable reply was given by the second respondent. Moreover, a complaint was raised by the petitioner and accordingly, an internal enquiry was conducted by the first respondent and on 12.12.2018, the Board of Discipline concluded that the second respondent was not guilty of “Professional Misconduct” falling within meaning of Clause (6) of Part I of First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the Board passed an order for the closure of the case in terms of Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6106 WP No. 106623 of 2019

Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there was no solicitation of any kind. The Writ Petition is devoid of

merits.

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected.

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

RH LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 48