TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Council was required to independently consider the Disciplinary Committee report, the written representation and the oral submissions of the member and record its own reasoned finding of misconduct before proceeding further; and whether the High Court was justified in accepting the Council's recommendation without such independent reasoning.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 makes the report of the Disciplinary Committee only a material for consideration, while the determinative finding of guilt or innocence must be recorded by the Council itself. The Council, while exercising a quasi-judicial function, must apply its own mind to the entire record, including the member's explanation and the evidence, and must support its conclusion with reasons. A bare or mechanical acceptance of the Disciplinary Committee's report does not satisfy the statutory requirement or the principles of natural justice. The High Court, in turn, was required to examine whether the Council had reached its conclusion through an independent and reasoned process before acting on the reference and imposing the ultimate consequence.
Conclusion: The Council's recommendation was unsustainable because it lacked independent reasoning and proper consideration of the material placed before it, and the High Court also erred in accepting it without addressing that defect. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the matter was remitted to the Council for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
