Specific authorisation and stale complaint rules bar disciplinary proceedings where the company lacked proper approval and delay prejudiced defence.
A company complaint under Rule 3(4) had to be backed by specific authorisation for the particular complaint, not a general resolution to lodge complaints in future; because no such specific authority existed, the complaint failed on that ground. Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules also allowed refusal to entertain a complaint made after seven years where delay prejudiced defence and evidence; as the complaint was filed more than seven years after the latest audit report and the respondent showed difficulty in preserving working papers, it was treated as stale and time barred. The challenge therefore failed.
Issues: (i) Whether a company complaint under Rule 3(4) required specific authorisation for the particular complaint. (ii) Whether the disciplinary complaint was liable to be rejected as time barred under Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules.
Issue (i): Whether a company complaint under Rule 3(4) required specific authorisation for the particular complaint.
Analysis: Rule 3(4) requires a complaint filed by or on behalf of a company or firm to be accompanied by a resolution specifically authorising an officer or person to make the complaint. The expression used in the rule points to authorisation for the particular complaint and not a general authority to lodge complaints in future. On the facts, the appellant had no specific authorisation for the complaint made against the chartered accountant.
Conclusion: The requirement of specific authorisation was not satisfied, and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the disciplinary complaint was liable to be rejected as time barred under Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules.
Analysis: Rule 12 permits refusal to entertain a complaint made more than seven years after the alleged misconduct where delay would create difficulty in securing evidence or in defending the matter. The complaint related to audit reports for 2005-06 to 2008-09 and was filed in 2016, more than seven years after the latest audit report. The written statement of the chartered accountant also showed prejudice from the delay and difficulty in preserving working papers. In these circumstances, the complaint was treated as stale and beyond the permissible time frame.
Conclusion: The complaint was rightly treated as time barred, and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the disciplinary orders failed because the complaint lacked the required specific authorisation and was filed after an inordinate delay, so the appeal could not be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: A company complaint under the disciplinary rules must be supported by specific authorisation for the particular complaint, and a stale complaint filed beyond the prescribed seven-year period may be refused where delay prejudices the defence and evidentiary position of the professional.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
