1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies expedited resolution request for inquiry into professional misconduct complaint</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition seeking direction to conclude an inquiry into a professional misconduct complaint within four weeks. The court noted ... Seeking a direction to the respondents to complete the inquiry on the complaint made by the petitioner of professional misconduct within a maximum period of four weeks - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has filed the complaint in September - October 2016, which the respondent states, is under active consideration. The matter is under active consideration. There is no justification shown by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondents to expedite hearing of the complaints of the petitioner. The petitioner has to wait for its turn, as several matters are pending before the Director (Discipline). No ground for urgency has been pleaded or shown. Petition dismissed. Issues:Petitioner seeks direction for completing inquiry on professional misconduct complaint within four weeks.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition seeking a direction for the respondents to conclude an inquiry into a complaint of professional misconduct within four weeks. The counsel for the respondents informed the court that the complaint was lodged in October 2016 and is currently being processed. It was highlighted that due to the overwhelming number of complaints received by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, it takes time for the Director (Discipline) to assess each complaint and determine if further action is warranted based on a prima facie view. The respondents argued that setting a four-week timeframe for resolving the complaint is impractical given the volume of cases. The court noted that the petitioner's complaint was already being actively considered and that there was no demonstrated urgency or justification for expediting the process. Consequently, the court found no grounds to issue a direction for expediting the hearing of the complaints at that stage, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
