Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Sm. Kanak Lata Ghose vs Amal Kumar Ghose on 9 September, 1969
Mr. Calla referring to Smt. Kanak Lata Ghose v. Amal Kumar
Ghose, AIR 1970 Cal 328; Meghji Malsee Ltd. v. P.C. Commen of
Pulivelli Kizhakkethil House, AIR 1963 Ker 306 and Commissioner of
(Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:42:38 PM)
(4 of 6) [CW-2569/2009]
Hazari Bagh Municipality v. Fulchand Agarwala, AIR 1966 Pat 434
urged that it may be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act
that a letter once posted would reach the addressee and, therefore, in
these circumstances it is urged that it should be taken that the letter
sent under certificate of posting reached the addressee and therefore
the certificate of posting obtained from the postal authorities must be
regarded as the acknowledgement received from the addressee
himself. I regret I cannot accept this contention of Mr. Calla. The
obvious reason for rejecting this argument is that the provision of
Clause (8) of Schedule I is couched in a language which introduces
some rigidity with which the obligation cast under that provision
should be discharged in order to maintain the standard of the
profession. If the instructions issued by the Council are ignored then
it becomes necessary under the law to see that the incoming auditor,
before accepting the new assignment, should in some manner
establish contact with the outgoing auditor and get at least the
acknowledgement from him for the receipt of his communication
addressed to his counter-part. This provision has been enacted by the
legislature with a view to maintain certain standard in the profession.
It is true that the council did experience certain practical difficulty in
the compliance of this provision of the law and therefore by issuing
instructions the rigidity of the law was diluted by providing that the
incoming auditor in order to ascertain that the communication
reached the addressee must obtain some kind of acknowledgement
from him and it is only then that he should take up his new job. Mere
obtaining a certificate of posting in my opinion does not fulfil the
requirements of Clause (8) of Schedule I as the presumption under
Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the letter in due course reach-led
the addressee cannot replace that positive degree of proof of the
delivery of the letter to the addressee which the letters of the law in
this case require. The expression 'in communication with' when read
in the light of the instructions contained in the booklet 'Code of
Conduct' cannot be interpreted in any other manner but to mean that
there should be positive evidence of the fact that the communication
addressed to the outgoing auditor by the incoming auditor reached
his hands. Certificate of posting of a letter cannot, in the
circumstances, be taken as positive evidence of its delivery to the
addressee.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 224 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 225 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Khemi Ram on 6 October, 1969
" This question, as to how the word 'communicated' be
interpreted, came up before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v.
Khemi Ram, AIR 1970 SC 214 = (1970 Lab IC 271). But the context
in which this word was to be interpreted by the court was different. In
that case an order was issued by the competent authority to the
Government employee. The question arose whether mere issuing of a
letter by an officer can be taken as communicating that order to the
employee. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the
ordinary meaning of the word 'communicate' is to impart, confer or
transmit information. The learned Judges further held that once an
order is issued and is sent out to the concerned Government servant it
must be held to have been communicated to him, no matter when did
he receive it actually. But this authority in my opinion would not be of
any avail to the appellant because the requirement of Clause (8) is not
that the incoming auditor has only to communicate his intention of
accepting the new assignment in place of the outgoing auditor. The
expression used by the legislature is that the incoming auditor must
be in communication in writing with the outgoing auditor. The
expression 'in communication' therefore cannot be taken equivalent to
the expression 'communicate to a particular person'. The mandate of
the legislature is that if a person accepts a position as auditor
previously held by another Chartered Accountant, 'without
(Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:42:38 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-2569/2009]
communicating with him' in writing then he in the eye of law is guilty
of misconduct. The expression 'communicate with him in writing' in
this context cannot be interpreted that this provision of the law simply
casts a duty on the incoming auditor to inform the outgoing auditor
about his intention to accept his new assignment. He has to do
something more to discharge his obligation under the said expression.
In my opinion Mr. Jain is correct when he submits that the
requirement of the expression 'communicate with him' requires more
than mere intimating his intention by despatching a letter under
certificate of posting. According to Mr. Jain the incoming auditor
must be in communication with the outgoing auditor i. e. he must be
in touch through letter with his counter-part and before he finally
accepts that offer of appointment as auditor he must at least get the
reply from the outgoing auditor about the receipt of the letter
addressed to him by the incoming auditor.