Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent chartered accountant was guilty of professional misconduct for accepting appointment as auditor without first ascertaining compliance with section 144 of the Companies Act, 1913, and, if so, what order should follow.
Analysis: A chartered accountant is bound by the disciplinary code to verify that the statutory requirements governing appointment of company auditors have been complied with before accepting office. The company had failed to appoint an auditor at its annual general meeting, and that omission could not be treated as a casual vacancy within the meaning of the provision allowing directors to fill temporary vacancies during the currency of the year. The respondent's assumption that the appointment fell under the casual-vacancy provision did not answer the charge, although his youth and inexperience were relevant in assessing the gravity of the lapse.
Conclusion: The charge was proved, but the conduct was not of such gravity as to justify a finding that the respondent was unfit to be a member of the Institute. A warning was held sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: Before accepting appointment as auditor, a chartered accountant must ascertain compliance with the statutory requirements for appointment of auditors, and a failure to do so may constitute misconduct, though the disciplinary consequence may be mitigated by the circumstances of the case.