https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242385 Pendency of a similar issue before the Supreme Court did not, by itself, justify staying an ongoing disciplinary inquiry under the Chartered Accountants Act. The Bombay HC noted that no stay had been granted on the disciplinary proceedings themselves, the petitioners had not shown that either the amended or unamended procedure definitively governed their case, and delaying the inquiry risked loss of witnesses and useful evidence. The Court therefore rejected a blanket stay and allowed the proceedings to continue, while directing that no further steps be taken until 17.12.2013. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242385 Pendency of a similar issue before the Supreme Court did not, by itself, justify staying an ongoing disciplinary inquiry under the Chartered Accountants Act. The Bombay HC noted that no stay had been granted on the disciplinary proceedings themselves, the petitioners had not shown that either the amended or unamended procedure definitively governed their case, and delaying the inquiry risked loss of witnesses and useful evidence. The Court therefore rejected a blanket stay and allowed the proceedings to continue, while directing that no further steps be taken until 17.12.2013. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242385