AMEYAS INFRAPROJECTS PVT.LTD Vs. AJAY B. GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE Petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing an Order dated 7th October, 2008 passed by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India holding that the complaint filed by the Petitioner against Mr.Ajay B.Garg, a Chartered Accountant and the Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was frivolous and the papers relating to the case had been accordingly filed. The Petitioner has also prayed that the complaint made by the Petitioner against the 1st Respondent shall be decided after complying with the principles of natural justice.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, during the arbitration proceedings filed by M/s.Atlanta Ltd. against the Petitioner and the other partners, the said M/s.Atlanta Ltd. submitted a purported audited accounts of the said firm as on 10th November, 2004 alongwith the affidavit of the Managing Director of the said M/s.Atlanta Ltd. on 8th March, 2006. According to the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent had not carried out audit but had certified the purported balancesheet. It is the case of the Petitioner that since the vouchers of the firm were at the Lucknow Office in the custody of the Petitioner, it was not possible for the Chartered Accountant to verify such vouchers. The certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant that he had verified the vouchers while carrying out the audit was thus incorrect. The 1st Respondent was though aware that the said firm was not registered, certified that the firm was registered without ascertaining the facts. The said firm, appointed Mr.Shadilal Chopra as a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties arising out of the Deed of Partnership dated 1st July, 2002. Before the Arbitrator, all the three partners including the Petitioner filed separate Statement of Claims. Various issues were raised before the Arbitrator by the parties. One of the issue was regarding the total profit and loss of the firm that would come to the share of each of the partner including the Petitioner.