Pendency of similar Supreme Court proceedings does not automatically justify staying an ongoing disciplinary inquiry.

Pendency of a similar issue before the Supreme Court did not, by itself, justify staying an ongoing disciplinary inquiry under the Chartered Accountants Act. The Bombay HC noted that no stay had been granted on the disciplinary proceedings themselves, the petitioners had not shown that either the amended or unamended procedure definitively governed their case, and delaying the inquiry risked loss of witnesses and useful evidence. The Court therefore rejected a blanket stay and allowed the proceedings to continue, while directing that no further steps be taken until 17.12.2013.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary inquiry initiated by the respondent ought to be stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in a separate appeal concerning the applicability of the amended or unamended disciplinary procedure under the Chartered Accountants Act.

Analysis: The pending appeal before the Supreme Court concerned the interpretation of the transitional provision and the applicability of the amended disciplinary scheme. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had not stayed the Delhi High Court judgment or the disciplinary proceedings themselves, and the interim protection in that case only restrained passing of the final order. The petitioners did not assert that either statutory procedure definitely applied to their case and sought only to await the outcome of the other appeal. The Court held that such pendency, by itself, did not justify halting the inquiry, particularly where substantial time had already elapsed, witnesses might become unavailable, and the collected evidence could still be useful even if a fresh inquiry were later required. The Court also distinguished the relied-upon precedent as turning on a different factual setting involving a protective assessment affecting only one assessee.

Conclusion: The request for a blanket stay of the inquiry was rejected; the disciplinary proceedings were permitted to continue, though no further steps were to be taken until 17.12.2013.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere pendency of a similar legal issue before the Supreme Court does not, without more, warrant an injunction staying ongoing proceedings where the balance of convenience and the interests of justice favour continuation of the inquiry.

---