<?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>2020 (3) TMI 518 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393374</link>
    <description>Under the Chartered Accountants disciplinary framework, a complaint closure decision must ordinarily be communicated with its reasons to the complainant. The statutory scheme in Sections 21 and 21A, read with the relevant Rules, was treated as requiring a reasoned closure order where the Director&#039;s prima facie view of no misconduct is accepted, and that reasoned decision must be conveyed unless disclosure is excluded by express provision or necessary implication. The court distinguished earlier rulings on personal hearing, holding that they did not control the separate issue of communication of reasons. The complainant was therefore entitled to receive the reasons supporting closure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2020 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 518 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393374</link>
      <description>Under the Chartered Accountants disciplinary framework, a complaint closure decision must ordinarily be communicated with its reasons to the complainant. The statutory scheme in Sections 21 and 21A, read with the relevant Rules, was treated as requiring a reasoned closure order where the Director&#039;s prima facie view of no misconduct is accepted, and that reasoned decision must be conveyed unless disclosure is excluded by express provision or necessary implication. The court distinguished earlier rulings on personal hearing, holding that they did not control the separate issue of communication of reasons. The complainant was therefore entitled to receive the reasons supporting closure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>