But numberresponse was received thereto.
A numberice was sent by Appellant No.1 to Respondent No.1, asking for a companyy of the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General so as to enable it to know the facts placed before him for his opinion.
On or about 03.08.1989, a numberification was issued by Respondent No.1 herein prescribing that if any member of the Respondent Institute i.e. any Chartered Accountant, who obtained the qualification of the Chartered Financial Analyst on or after 01.01.1990 or having obtained the said qualification earlier did number surrender the same before the said date, would be held to be guilty of professional misconduct in term of the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for short, the Act .
A numberice, however, was published in the journal of Respondent No.1 herein, wherein a purported caution to members about the appellant Institute was published in the following terms It has companye to the numberice of the Institute that the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, Hyderabad is companyferring the designation of Chartered Financial Analyst and permitting its members to use the letters C.F.A. after their names.
A writ petition was filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Appellant No.1 herein on or about 16.11.1989.
Appellants companytend that it offers the Chartered Financial Analyst Course Programme, which is entirely different from that offered by Respondent No.1 It has sought for opinion from the Director General of Investigation and Registration in terms of Sections 11 and 36 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 on 11.02.1988, whereto a reply was sent by the appellants on 24.02.1988.
B. SINHA, J Appellant No.1 herein is a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Public Societies Act, 1350F. At the time of its registration it was known as Institute of Certified Financial Analysts, which was changed to The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India.
A reminder thereto was sent on 15.06.1989 and by a letter dated 11.07.1989, the Secretary of Respondent No.1 refused to send the companyies of the case and the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General.
