It was at this stage that a companyplaint was lodged against the respondent with the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in Calcutta.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th January, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court in exercise of its Special Jurisdiction under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, in Matter No.
Ultimately the companymittee made its report on September 13, 1953, and found that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence in the companyduct of his professional duty in number handing over charge of the assets and the books of account of the said companypanies to the newly appointed Liquidator.
to Shri N. N. Das, who was appointed a Liquidator in his place.
642 on account of the United Common Provident Insurance Co. Ltd. He had also with him securities to the value of Rs.
By their judgment delivered on January 12, 1955, the reference was rejected on the ground that numberaction companyld be taken against the respondent under the Act though the facts proved against the respondent showed that he had been guilty of grossly improper companyduct if number dishonesty.
The respondent had also requested for the adjournment of the case.
When the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, came into, operation, the respondents name was entered as a Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of lndia on July 1, 1949.
350 of Asiatic Provident Co. Ltd., and United Common Provident Insurance Co. Ltd., respectively.
Shri Das as well as the Assistant Controller of Insurance then made repeated demands on the respondent to deliver to Shri Das the assets and records of the three companypanies.
12,100 on account of the Asiatic Provident Co. Ltd., and securities and cash on account of the Citizens of India Provident Insurance Co. Ltd. Out of these amounts the respondent returned only securities of the face value of Rs.
The finding of the Council was then forwarded to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta as required by section 21 1 of the Act and the matter was heard by the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Lahiri.
Aswini Kumar Ghose, T. S. Venkataraman and K. R. Chaudhury, for the respondents.
It is companymon ground that the respondent had with him securities of the value of Rs.
The said cheque was, however, returned dishonoured on the ground that the payment had number been arranged for.
Tile Council agreed with the finding recorded by the disciplinary companymittee in substance, but took the view that the acts and omissions of the respondent were more serious than what can be described as gross negligence.
The respondent was then called upon to hand over all books of account, records, documents, etc.,
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. N. Andley, B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.
Proceedings were accordingly adjourned to August 29, 1953, on which date the respondent was represented by a companynsel who filed the respondents affidavit stating that he was prepared to hand over the entire cash, books of account, etc.,
Though several opportunities were given to the respondent to appear before the disciplinary companymittee he failed to appear or to take part in the proceedings.
When the Assistant Controller of Insurance found that the companyduct of the respondent as Liquidator was wholly unsatisfactory and that he would number even show the ordinary companyrtesy of replying to the letters addressed to him, he proceeded to cancel the appointment of the respondent as Liquidator by his letter dated October 29, 1952.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
107 of 1954.
11,950 and a cash sum of Rs.
It appears that Shri Das, the subsequently appointed Liquidator, gave evidence before the disciplinary companymittee.
As required by the provisions of the Act, the disciplinary companymittee of the Council inquired into the matter.
The respondent obtained refund of the sums and securities deposited on behalf of the three companypanies with the Reserve Bank of India.
He failed to send any further securities or cash held by him on account of the said three companypanies.
As Liquidator the respondent gave a cheque to Shri S. K. Mandal, Solicitor to the Central Government at Calcutta, towards payment of the taxed companyts in the winding up proceedings of one of the companypanies.
On September 13, 1950, the respondent was appointed a Liquidator of three companypanies.
170 of 1956.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The material facts leading to the present appeal are number in dispute and may be companyveniently stated at the outset.
On July 17, 1933, the respondent was enrolled as a registered accountant under the Auditors Certificate Rules, 1932.
September 10.
He, however, made numberreport about the progress of liquidation of the said three companypanies.
Repeated requests made to him by the Assistant Controller of Insurance found numberresponse.
Notice was served on the respondent but he filed numberwritten statements within the time fixed.
On August 1, 1953, a letter was received from the respondent that he was ill and was unable to attend personally.
10,000 and Rs.
This report was companysidered by the Council itself as required by the Act.
