TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Rule, 2007"). The impugned order of the Board of Discipline, dated 1st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3 to the memo of this LPA), is under challenge, along with the order passed by the Director (Discipline), dated 24th September, 2018 (Annexure A-4). • This appellant is Wholesale Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. The person who has filed this writ petition has the general authority, as alleged by this appellant, to file complaint under Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007. This appellant submits that it is engaged amongst other things, in the business of trading of agricultural commodity, along with other goods. • This appellant (original petitioner) had filed a complaint on 26^th September, 2016 (Annexure A-6) against Respondent No. 3 - Chartered Accountant Sh. Jayesh M. Gandhi who is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and is a practicing chartered accountant. It is alleged in this complaint that the accounts and audit reports in respect of the following seven companies have not been prepared in compliance with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be given within a period of eight weeks and, further proceedings be completed within a period of six weeks thereafter. • Hence, Director (Discipline) has given a prima facie opinion under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and Board of Discipline has also passed an order dated 1st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3), stating therein that the complaint is time barred, looking to the nature of the complaint and the written statement filed by Mr. Jayesh M. Gandhi, and looking to the provisions of the Act, 1949 read with the Rules, 2007. • Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Board of Discipline dated 1st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3) and also being aggrieved by the order of the Director (Discipline) dated 24th September, 2018 (Annexure A-4), this appellant had preferred W.P.(C) 8081/2019. • As W.P.(C) 8081/2019, preferred by this appellant, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 1st August, 2019, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) • Counsel appearing for the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Judge is at Annexure A-1 to the memo of this LPA. (ii) This appellant has filed a complaint dated 26th September, 2016 (Annexure A-6) against one Sh. Jayesh M. Gandhi, who is a chartered accountant, finding fault with his audit reports etc. for the following seven companies : (a) Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited, (b) Prazim Trading and Investment Company Private Limited, (c) Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (d) Tarish Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (e) Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (f) Zash Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, (g) Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited. (iii) This appellant has nothing to do with the aforesaid companies. This appellant has no cause of action with the aforesaid seven companies. (iv) This appellant has no specific authorisation as required under Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007. For the ready reference, Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2007 reads as under : "3(4) A complaint filed by or on behalf of a company or a firm, shall be accompanied by a resolution, d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by Mr. Jayesh M. Gandhi (Annexure A-7), specifically paragraph 4 thereof, reads as under: "4. I would like to draw your attention that seven companies, which are subject matter of the complaint, are private limited companies without any public borrowings. Further, the complaint is in respect of audit of financial years 2005-06 to 2008-09. Audit of the latest year, i.e 2008-09 of all the companies were completed in June 2009 and reports were issued in the same month. The complaint is dated 26 September, 2016 which is after a long gap of more than 7 years from my signing of the relevant audit reports. It is beyond the requirement of maintaining audit records for 7 years as per the announcement of ICAI (refer Annexure I). In my opinion, the complaint should not be entertained as the auditors are not bound to keep their working papers beyond seven years and therefore all the relevant audit papers may not be available for reply to the complaint. I would like to point out that this complaint is filed under The Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 and as per clause 12 of the Rules, this com....