<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (5) TMI 353 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206294</link>
    <description>Criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 may proceed simultaneously, and a stay is justified only in exceptional cases where the charges are identical or substantially similar, the criminal case is grave, and complicated questions of law and fact would seriously prejudice the defence. On the facts, the disciplinary allegations of professional negligence, lack of due diligence, and auditing-standard breaches were distinct from the criminal allegations of conspiracy, cheating, and fraud. The Court also rejected the self-incrimination objection under Article 20(3). The disciplinary enquiry was therefore allowed to continue alongside the criminal trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 353 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206294</link>
      <description>Criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 may proceed simultaneously, and a stay is justified only in exceptional cases where the charges are identical or substantially similar, the criminal case is grave, and complicated questions of law and fact would seriously prejudice the defence. On the facts, the disciplinary allegations of professional negligence, lack of due diligence, and auditing-standard breaches were distinct from the criminal allegations of conspiracy, cheating, and fraud. The Court also rejected the self-incrimination objection under Article 20(3). The disciplinary enquiry was therefore allowed to continue alongside the criminal trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>