https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765833 Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018 were upheld against challenges based on retrospectivity, vicarious liability, and Article 20(1), because the scheme enforced a pre-existing concept of professional misconduct and treated audit-firm liability as permissible in audit work. The Court also held that the summary procedure was not inherently unfair where notice, disclosure of material, and hearing were provided. However, the same Executive Body had both prepared the audit quality reports and decided to issue show-cause notices, breaching the required separation between review and initiation of discipline. That overlap created a reasonable apprehension of bias and predetermination, so the notices and final orders were quashed. en-us Fri, 07 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765833 Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018 were upheld against challenges based on retrospectivity, vicarious liability, and Article 20(1), because the scheme enforced a pre-existing concept of professional misconduct and treated audit-firm liability as permissible in audit work. The Court also held that the summary procedure was not inherently unfair where notice, disclosure of material, and hearing were provided. However, the same Executive Body had both prepared the audit quality reports and decided to issue show-cause notices, breaching the required separation between review and initiation of discipline. That overlap created a reasonable apprehension of bias and predetermination, so the notices and final orders were quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 07 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765833