TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y auditorship of a company viz., M/s. Navabharath Flange and Allied Industries Limited, Bombay without ascertaining compliance of Sections 224 and 225 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and without issuing a registered notice to the 2nd respondent. On a complaint, the ICAI referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee to hold enquiry, and the Disciplinary Authority after hearing the parties was of the view that the 1st respondent-petitioner had complied with the requirements under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (for short 'the CA Act') and his conduct was totally bona fide, and that the lapse, if any, was on the part of the company as it did not comply with the circular of the Company Law Board, and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was challenged by the 1st respondent-petitioner before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 37189 of 1995 and the learned Single Judge, on consideration, quashed the impugned order dated 18-9-1995 and allowed the writ petition, as stated. 3. Sri Jayaram, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that the 1st respondent-petitioner, despite notice, never appeared before the Council nor filed any written statement, and therefore, it was within the competence of the appellant to order for further enquiry and that the Council has power to do so and that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself and erred in approving the finding of the Disciplinary Committee ignoring the case-laws particularly the decision in Institute of Chartere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submits that this Court has already held that sending communication through registered letter is not mandatory. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the legal position that the Council is the ultimate authority and, if necessary, it can at any point of time remit the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for further enquiry, if some material is not considered by the Disciplinary Committee but certainly not in this case without coming to the conclusion that the Council is not agreeable to the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. He submits that once no professional misconduct has been proved against the 1st respondent-petitioner and once it is held that there is no violation of requirement of Sections 224 and 225 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority to make further enquiry and submit report, if necessary. 7. So far as the cardinal law of interpretation is concerned, it is settled that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it is to he read with the clear intention of the legislation. Otherwise also, any addition/subtraction of a word is not permissible. In other words, it is not proper to use a sense, which a different from what the word used ordinarily conveys. The duty of the Court is not to fill up the gap by stretching a word used. It is also settled that a provision is to be read as a whole and while interpreting, the intention and object of the legislation have to be looked upon. However, each case depends upon the facts of its own. 8. So far as the argument that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther enquiry was correct or not in the given case even if the Council had the power to order for further enquiry. The fact remains that nothing has been disclosed while issuing notice about the acceptance of the decision of the Disciplinary Committee nor it is stated that the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Committee holding that 1st respondent-petitioner is not guilty, is correct or not or that it was necessary to order any further enquiry. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Council ordering further enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee without any observation as to non-acceptance of the report of the Disciplinary Committee is not tenable, even though the Council as the Controlling Authority has power. It is also settled pro....