Delhi High Court - Orders
Harish Ramappakanchan vs Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of ... on 11 January, 2022
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 29/2022
HARISH RAMAPPAKANCHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Sachar with Ms. Niyati
Kohli, Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan and Mr.
Sangram Singh, Advocates.
versus
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Saigal with Mr. Anshul
Bajaj, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay and
Mr. Chaitanya Pandey, Advocates for
R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 11.01.2022 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] CM No. 1794/2022 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 29/2022 & CM No. 1793/2022 (for stay)
3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the communication dated 5th January, 2022 issued by the respondent no.2 Disciplinary Directorate, in terms of which the name of the petitioner was sought to be removed from the Register of Members for a period of six months with effect from 11th January, 2022.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI CM(M) 29/2022 Page 1 of 3 RAMOLA Signing Date:01.11.2022 23:06:004. The aforesaid communication is based on the order dated 22nd December, 2021 passed in Appeal No.05/ICAI/2016, whereby the Appellate Authority constituted under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 has vacated the stay order granted in favour of the petitioner on 26th May, 2016.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that at the hearing scheduled on 22nd December, 2021, the counsel for the petitioner had sought a passover and since, he could not reach in time even after the passover, the aforesaid order vacating the stay was passed by the Appellate Authority. He further submits that till date, he has not received a copy of the said order and in view of the vacation of the stay order, the appeal filed by the petitioner would become infructuous.
6. Ms. Pooja Saigal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 submits that a passover for about half an hour was granted by the Appellate Authority but the counsel for the petitioner failed to appear even after the said passover and accordingly, the order dated 22nd December, 2021 was passed.
7. Having heard the counsels for the parties, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority should have given an opportunity for the counsel for the petitioner to appear before vacating the stay order, which was passed as far back as on 26th May, 2016.
8. The counsel for the petitioner correctly states that the appeal filed by petitioner would be rendered infructuous if the stay order granted in his favour is vacated without affording him an opportunity to be heard in respect thereto.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 22nd December, 2021, the copy of which is available neither to the petitioner nor the respondents, is set aside and Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI CM(M) 29/2022 Page 2 of 3 RAMOLA Signing Date:01.11.2022 23:06:00 consequently the communication dated 5th January, 2022 issued in pursuance to the aforesaid order is also set aside.
10. The appeal filed by the petitioner would be heard by the Appellate Authority on a date after giving due notices to all the parties concerned.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
JANUARY 11, 2022 at Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI CM(M) 29/2022 Page 3 of 3 RAMOLA Signing Date:01.11.2022 23:06:00