K. RAM REDDY Vs. BOARD OF DISCIPLINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the writ petitions. Mr. T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in both the writ petitions. Mr. G. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions.

(2.) In W.P.No.31619 of 2014, following relief is prayed for:

(3.) Since similar issues arise for consideration in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For facility of reference, facts in W.P.No.31619 of 2014 are being referred to. The petitioner, a Managing Partner in M/s. Variety Recon Trucks, avers in the petition that agreement dtd. 1/4/2007 was entered with respondent No.4 for transfer and sale of lorries. A suit bearing O.S.No.425 of 2011 was instituted seeking rendition of accounts from respondent No.4. A notice dtd. 5/11/2011 was issued under Order XI Rules 15 and 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 calling for production of documents in the suit on suspicion that respondent No.4 conducted its business illegally and in the process avoided payment of various taxes and transfer fee running into crores of rupees. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 being the statutory auditor has not disclosed the information as required under the Auditing Standards and the same constitutes misconduct as per Accounting Standards of Companies Act, 1956 and violation of relevant audit Rules. A complaint against respondent No.3 was lodged in the office of respondent No.2 under Regulation No.12 of the Chartered Accountant Regulations, 1988 (for short, 'the Regulations, 1988') read with Sec. 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act, 1968').