<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1812 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297674</link>
    <description>Rule 9 of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 does not prescribe any fixed period for completing disciplinary proceedings. Where the complaint had already advanced beyond the Rule 8 stage and the Director (Discipline) had examined the material and forwarded the matter for the next stage, the Court found no undue delay and no legal basis to require priority over other pending complaints. It also noted that the petitioner lacked a direct interest in alleged misconduct concerning a third-party firm. The writ petition was therefore held unmerited and dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:20:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1812 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297674</link>
      <description>Rule 9 of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 does not prescribe any fixed period for completing disciplinary proceedings. Where the complaint had already advanced beyond the Rule 8 stage and the Director (Discipline) had examined the material and forwarded the matter for the next stage, the Court found no undue delay and no legal basis to require priority over other pending complaints. It also noted that the petitioner lacked a direct interest in alleged misconduct concerning a third-party firm. The writ petition was therefore held unmerited and dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>