citations needed for writ interim relief argument involving admin law
Adv.Aiyer VLV
(Querist) 26 July 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sirs,
I urgently need citations for the following. This is w.r.t. writ on order by committee of CA institute in disciplinary matter, but civil and criminal law esp. admin law citations will be useful:
1. an order will be bad in law if Findings/Indictment exceed charge as per deposition (examination in chief). Deposition charges overrule charges in complaint.
2. a complaint fails for charges not being specific and clear
3. parties must be same and then fact in issue must be same or at least fact in issue in first case be relevant facts in second case for authority or court handling that case to apply finidngs in first second
4. a suit is liable for Improper verification (not signing, not signing for and on behalf of person litigatin
5. Litigation by proxy is imperssible in law.
6. burden of proving complaint is with the complainant. Respondent need not disprove his case.
Thank you all in advance.
regards
Adv.Aiyer VLV
(Querist) 26 July 2011
Thanks sir Sri. SKJ.
This matter is in writ w.r.t. CA institute tribunal. they claim all procedures are not to be followed.
but when there is dispute as to ownership of documents, ICAI must see originals as primary or atleast secondary evidence. isn't it? Can they do enquiry only with photocopies?
regards
VLV
venkatesh Rao
(Expert) 28 July 2011
I have participated some departmental inquiries as a defence assistant. I can give a vivid reply. Pl. state briefly the facts/case.
Adv.Aiyer VLV
(Querist) 03 November 2011
Brief facts are given below:
A complaint on CA stating he was engaged as client is filed by individual. verified as individual. complaint is about grievance of a society I. society claims name as I-India. 1991 accounts claimed as branch account audied by CA & audit report do not have words Branch of I or IIndia I or I-India. no proof for I-India as name. no resolution, letter of engagement with complainant, I or I-India filed. CA refused they had ever been client, but report issued to another society IB. IB sent reports on its own to I-India AOP for assessment. no written document for oral AOP. Institute in crypticfinds prima facie guilty orders disciplinary committee enquiry. CA filed evidence of another CA who refused he signed 1st balance sheet claimed by I and deposed it was given to IB. DC lies about interlocuory application filed asking for documentary evidence from complainant and evidence filed by CA. first and only 1 day hearing,case closed.
700 page documents filed on that day by I including IT orders. no time given to reply to it. minutes prove DC did not read 700 pages.
DC made 4 findings.
finding 1 false as per record of institute.
finding 2 regarding name use covered by Reg190 covered as professional misconduct under clause(i)Part II 2 sch, but holds guilty of other misconduct.
finding 3 states even if 2 balance sheet signed for IB is misconduct whereas institute issued guidance note for revision of account & audit report, when case filed was 1 balance sheet given to I, modified and issued to IB. finding 3 proves I lost case and no balance sheet exist of I for 1991.
finding 4 states 1988 to 2000, I balance sheet and IB balance sheet seems from same books of account. this finding is borrowed from IT order to which CA is not party.
none of balance sheet filed by I, has 'branch' or 'I' or 'I-India' name.
Civil court (in suit b/w I &IB) finds I could not prove branch existed. DC ignores finding of binding civil court.
DC report leaked to complainant, Reg16(2) provides only CA to be given report.
complainant issues defamatory media release maligning CA, with lies not part of report.
What are remedies to CA writ to quash/re-enquiry, defamation suit, injunciton etc.? whether writ remedy for denovo enquiry & quashing proceeding u/A 226, 227 available to CA? fundamental rights violation occurred u/A 14, 19, 20 & 21?
Adv.Aiyer VLV
(Querist) 03 November 2011
SC has held in many cases that CPC rules do not strictly apply to quasi-judicial proceedings. Here, they make it clear at the beginning by giving their own rules and procedures. but none followed. no enquiry done.
Art. 226, 227 relief, in my opinion is imminent. Ujjam Bhai judgement talks of if intra vires law, legal action can't be questioned. but this has changed in later decisions. perverse orders are considered without jurisdiction.
your views are appreciated
