SRI DAYARAM DAS vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION No.49399 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Son of Vinayak N Kocharekar,

Aged about 50 years,

ISKCON,

Old No.J-20/New No.J-34,

2nd Floor, 2nd Cross Pipeline,

Malleswaram,

Bangalore 560 003.

Consciousness (ISKCON),

Hare Krishna Land,

Juhu Mumbai,

Represented by its President,

Dayaram Das,

50 years.

…PETITIONERS

(By Shri D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate)

2 AND:

Of India, “ICAI Bhawan”,

Indraprastha Marg,

Post Box No.7100,

Represented by its Director,

New Delhi 110 002.

Major,

123/1, 2nd Cross,

5th Main, 1st Block,

1st Stage, HBR Layout,

Bangalore 560 043.

… RESPONDENTS

(By Shri S. Sriranga, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri Srinivasa Raghavan .V, Advocate for Shri Sanath Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-R the proceedings of the first respondent dated 12.6.2013.

This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved on 20.01.2016 and coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-

3 ORDER The facts of the case are as follows: 2. Petitioner no.2 is said to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘SR Act’, for brevity) and is also said to be a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPT Act’, for brevity). The registered office of the said petitioner is said to be at Mumbai. The first petitioner is said to be a member of the governing body of petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 is said to have its activities through out India and is said to have temples and branches in many states of India. The procedure adopted by the said petitioner to prepare its final accounts for audit and submission of returns to the competent authorities is said to be well organised. The office bearers of each branch maintain accounts of receipts and expenditure locally. At the end of the financial year, the office-bearers of each branch prepare a Balance sheet and the Statement of Income and

4 Expenditure for the branch and have it audited locally. Then the audited accounts along with the audited report are sent to the Registered office at Mumbai. It is there that the final accounts of all the branches are merged and comprehensive final accounts are prepared. The same are then filed before the Income Tax authorities and the Charity Commissioner, respectively. All the movable and immovable properties held by International Society for Krishna Consciousness, (ISKCON) at Mumbai and its branches elsewhere in India, from the date of their acquisition, are assessed to tax by the Income Tax Department at Mumbai, as the assets of petitioner no.2. It is stated that the activities in Bangalore had commenced during the year 1975. Its operations were minimal and the accounts were initially routed through the Hyderabad branch to Mumbai, till the year 1982. From the said year, the accounts were said to be directly sent to Mumbai.

5 It is said that in the year 1984, the governing body of petitioner no.2 is said to have designated one Madhu Pandit Das, as the President and one Chanchalapathi Das as the Vice President of the Bangalore branch. And for the financial year ending 31st March, 1991, the Bangalore branch accounts are said to have been audited by the second respondent, who had also issued an audit report dated 4.10.1991. And had endorsed that he was auditing the accounts of a branch of an entity registered under the BPT Act. It is stated that in the year 1998, a dispute is said to have arisen between the Bangalore branch functionaries of the petitioner and the governing body of the petitioners. Between the years 1998 and 2001, the Bangalore branch functionaries are said to have filed a series of civil suits in OS 2180/1999, OS 4467/2000 and OS 1483/2001 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore. It was admitted therein that what was functioning as ISKCON at Bangalore was a branch of Petitioner no.2. That in 1984 Madhu Pandit Das and Chanchalapathi Das were deputed as office bearers of the Bangalore branch from Mumbai. That the Bangalore

6 branch was having its accounts audited locally and despatching the same to Mumbai for final accounting. The suits are said to have been subsequently withdrawn as no interim reliefs could be obtained. However, they are said to have filed one more suit in OS 7934/2001, in which it was said to have been falsely claimed that what was functioning at Bangalore was an independent society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KSR Act’, for brevity) and not a branch of the Mumbai Society. It is stated that in the above said suit, the Bangalore functionaries had produced various documents including the audited balance sheets of the Bangalore Society for the period between 1989-90 and 2000-01. Though these balance sheets were from the period 1989, they had been produced for the first time in one lot as on 9.8.2001, before the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka. It is stated that though the accounts indicated transactions involving large sums of money, no income tax returns were forthcoming till the year 2001. This, according to the

7 petitioners, clearly indicated that the said documents were concocted to support the false claim of the Bangalore functionaries as constituting an independent Society. It is stated that the above said accounts had been certified by the second respondent herein. It is hence alleged that the second respondent had actively colluded with Madhu Pandit Das and others in creating the said accounts. This was evident from the fact that the second respondent, as already stated, had in the year 1991, certified that he was auditing the accounts of the Bangalore branch of the Mumbai Society. Therefore, for the financial year ending 31.3.1991, there were two sets of financial statements both certified by the second respondent, one belonging to the Bangalore branch of petitioner no.2 and one belonging to the Bangalore registered Society - in respect of the very funds, properties, income and expenditure and based on the same set of books. Hence, there was falsification of accounts. As the petitioners had filed the consolidated accounts of all its branches, including Bangalore, for the years from 1991 to

8 2000, at Mumbai, it was evident that the very accounts were fudged for a period of 12 years by the second respondent in collusion with the Bangalore functionaries and were filed before the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka, in one go in the year 2001, to facilitate the launching of the above said civil suit in OS 7934/2001, in a diabolic attempt to usurp the movable and immovable assets of the Bangalore branch. The said falsified accounts, incidentally, had never been filed before the Income Tax Department at Bangalore for over 12 years. It is stated that in the course of the proceedings in the above said suit, a report dated 21.1.1990 was said to have been produced, duly certified by the second respondent to the effect that with effect from 31.3.1988, the assets of the Bangalore branch had been donated by the petitioners to the Bangalore registered Society. This, according to the petitioners was a false report. As no gift of immovable properties could be made without registration thereof. It is further alleged that the second respondent had made a further report dated 1.9.1990, to the effect that the Bangalore

9 Branch of petitioner no.2 was taken over by the Bangalore Society in the year 1982. This was contrary to his earlier report. Hence, on the above acts of respondent, which according to the petitioners, were acts of misconduct within the meaning of the Chartered Accountants Act,1949 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CA Act’, for brevity), the petitioners are said to have filed a complaint with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, as on 6.5.2005. Respondent no.2 had been called upon to respond to the complaint, which he is said to have met. A rejoinder is said to have been filed by the petitioners. In accordance with Regulation 12(11) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, the Council had directed an enquiry to be conducted by the Disciplinary Committee of the first respondent. The Disciplinary Committee is said to have submitted its report dated 10.2.2011. The second respondent was said to have been held guilty of misconduct, under Clause (7) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the CA Act, in having signed two sets of

10 financial statements for the financial year 31.3.1991. And that he had signed 12 financial statements from the year 1988-89 to 2000- 2001 of the Bangalore registered Society, all of which were filed before the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka, in one lot, and was hence guilty of 'other misconduct', within the meaning of Section 22 read with Section 21 of the CA Act. It was also found that the second respondent had signed Statements of Accounts of the Bangalore registered Society for the period 1991-92 to 1997-98, on behalf of the firm M/s VLV & Co., despite the fact that the said firm had closed down from 1.6.992. Similarly, he had verified books of accounts of the said Society on behalf of one M/s VLV Associates, which was also defunct from 22.12.2003. It then transpires, that as on 23.5.2011, a division bench of this court had pronounced judgment in an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in the civil suit in OS 7934/2001, in RFA 421/2009 - filed by petitioner no.2 herein. It was held therein that the Bangalore registered Society never functioned after it was registered in the year 1978. That Madhu Pandit Das had

11 fabricated documents and sought to resurrect a defunct society, fraudulently. The claim by the Bangalore registered Society as an independent Society was not tenable. The said judgment is under challenge before the Apex Court and is pending. The Second respondent had challenged the order of the Disciplinary Committee aforesaid, before this court in a writ petition in WP 26687/2011. This court having found that the report of the Committee was to be considered by the Council for further action, had disposed of the petition, with a direction that respondent no.2 be heard, while also observing that the petitioner no.1 would also be given a right of audience, as per order dated 31.10.2012. It is claimed that to the shock of the petitioner, he was informed that the Council had passed a final order dated 12.1.2013, holding that the second respondent was not guilty of any misconduct. It is urged that the petitioner was not put on notice of hearing preceding the final order of the Council. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that inspite of his specific request that

12 he be informed at alternative addresses that he had furnished, he had not been informed of the date of hearing and that the Council appears to have heard the matter in his absence and passed the impugned order and hence the present writ petition.

13 taken note of the Judgment in appeal is evident from the impugned Order, where it finds mention. It is contended that it was confirmed by the judgment of this court in the above said appeal that Madhu Pandit Das, his relatives and other associates have made an attempt to fraudulently usurp the temple and other valuable properties at Bangalore by surreptitiously resurrecting a defunct Society on the strength of the fabricated documents prepared by the second respondent acting in active connivance with them, in the light of such findings, the first respondent had improperly and irregularly arrived at contrary findings. It is pointed out that the disciplinary committee of the first respondent had found that the second respondent had certified two sets of financial statements on two different dates for the financial year ending 31.3.1991, which are based on one set of books of accounts. And the Council of the first respondent in its findings has opined that the second set of statements were forged, according to the second respondent. These allegedly forged

14 statement of accounts along with financial statements for other 11 years were certified by the second respondent and filed by the Bangalore registered Society before the Registrar of Societies, Karnataka, in the year 2001. The second respondent not having denied his signatures on the above said two statements of accounts, he is guilty of having certified forged statements of accounts. But yet, the Council had absolved the second respondent of any misconduct. It is contended that the order impugned states that the audit reports submitted by the petitioner were not in Form No.10B format or in the format required under the BPT Act. The audit report dated 4.10.1991 has annexed the audit report issued by the second respondent, which is the format prescribed under the BPT Act. Further, as this was audit of the Bangalore branch of petitioner no.2, it cannot therefore be in Form No.10-B, as the branch has no separate legal existence other than petitioner no.2. The branch is nothing but functioning of the petitioner no.2 at Bangalore. Only the audit report on the petitioner no.2’s audited

15 accounts (which is consolidation of accounts of all of its branches) would be in Form 10-B as required under Income Tax Act, 1961. As far as the financial statements of the Bangalore registered society are concerned, the petitioner had no access to them other than what was filed by Madhu Pandit Das with the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore. It is further pointed out that the order impugned stated that word “ISKCON India” or “ISKCON Bombay” was not found in the said audit report. The council of the first respondent had failed to notice that the name of petitioner no.2 is “ISKCON”. The branches of the petitioner were referred to as ISKCON, Kolkata, ISKCON, Bangalore, ISKCON, Delhi etc. These two terms “ISKCON India” or “ISKCON Bombay” were used to refer petitioner no.2, but this was not the name of petitioner no.2. It is contended that the Council has, in the impugned Order, held that though in the year 1992, the partnership, which owned and operated the firm M/s VLV & Company, was dissolved, the firm itself was not dissolved. And the first respondent has issued a

16 letter dated 13.4.2005 stating that M/s V.L.V & Company, is closed since 1992. The Council’s finding is that the dissolution of the partnership did not amount to dissolution of the firm and therefore, the second respondent continued to sign as the proprietor of M/s V.L.V. & Company. The reports would clearly indicate that he has signed as a partner of M/s V.L.V. & Company for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 and not as its proprietor as has been observed by the Council. This can either be a deliberate mistake by the council to hold the second respondent not guilty or that the documents which the council considered are not the documents which are subject matter of the proceedings before the disciplinary committee. Either ways, the order in this regard is illegal or contrary to the records, which was considered by the Disciplinary Committee of the first respondent. Further, it is contended that when the Bangalore registered society had filed its first income-tax return in the year 2001-02, the Directorate of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai has passed an

17 order that those accounts filed by the Bangalore Registered Society were nothing but the accounts of the Bangalore branch of petitioner no.2. Therefore, those accounts were merged with the accounts of the petitioner for the purpose of re-assessment and the orders of the assessment passed by the Income-tax Department have become final. The effect of the orders passed by the Council of the first respondent is that the council of the first respondent is sitting over the finding of the Income-tax authorities. Whatever a Chartered Accountant does in the course of filing returns, i.e., certifying financial statements, preparing the Income-tax liability of the assessee, etc., is scrutinized by the Income-tax Department and these are always amenable to the assessment orders to be passed by the Income-tax authorities. Those assessment orders are final and not the report and financial statements certified by the Chartered Accountant so far as the financial status of a person for that particular year is concerned. The Council of the first respondent has given no consideration to the orders passed by the Income-tax Department and in fact, has given findings which are

18 contrary to the findings of the Income tax Department. The approach of the Council, as it appears from the reading of the order, is only to exonerate the second respondent. Without making a reference to the actual findings of the disciplinary authority along with the documents referred to by it and the reasoning put forward by it, the conclusion, which is arrived at, will not stand to reason.

It is hence contended that the petition be allowed and the impugned Order be quashed.

19 the notice dated 21.12.2012 issued by it to the first petitioner, along with a copy of the speed post receipt and the track report obtained from the Indian Postal Authority, which indicates that the said communication was received by the petitioner no.1 himself. This material would negate the contention that there was no opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioners. The petitioners have sought to challenge an Order issued by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The management and the affairs of the first respondent, are vested in the Council. It is empowered to carry out various functions under the CA Act, including the exercise of disciplinary action against its members. The impugned order is passed in exercise of that power. As rightly contended by the respondents, matters pertaining to professional misconduct cannot be construed as a lis or controversy between parties, to be adjudicated by this court. This is especially so when admittedly, the petitioners had not engaged the services of respondent no.2 as their Chartered Accountant.

20 The allegations by the petitioners against the second respondent and other functionaries of ISKCON, Bangalore, being the subject matter of civil litigation, which is presently pending adjudication before the Apex Court would indicate that the several areas of controversy as to the status of the entities involved and the manner in which the sequence of events have unfolded, could hardly have been addressed by the Council and as matter of prudence, the Council has not ventured to examine more than what was necessary, and rightly so. The Council having formed a prima facie opinion that respondent no.2 may have been guilty of misconduct, had, on the basis of the complaint made against him by the petitioners, referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee to conduct an enquiry. The Disciplinary Committee is seen to have submitted its report as on 10.2.2011 to the Council, with the following observations :

“24.1 It has been noted that whether ISKCON, Bangalore is a different entity or not is disputed matter and to be decided by the Civil Court. As the case relating to ownership of Bangalore Branch was pending before the Civil Court, yet, the Committee, though not looking into this aspect while giving its finding and restricting itself to the conduct of the member in his professional capacity. Accordingly, the committee decided to consider only the misconduct done by the respondent in his professional capacity as Auditor while signing the financial statement of ISKON India/or ISKON Defunct as auditor.

24.2 As far as the Financial Statement for the accounting year 1990-1991 is concerned, the Committee noted that the Respondent had signed two set of financial statements for the year ending 1990-91, which appears to have been prepared from one set of Books of accounts as both the financial statements contains almost similar items and similar figures, for e.g. unsecured loan, investments, advertisement expenses, festival expenses, electricity expenses, devotee maintenance etc.

24.3 In order to find that both the financial statement was prepared from one set of books of accounts, the Committee noted the following facts from the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2001-2002.

22 i) That the Director of Income Tax (Exem) – II (1), Mumbai had considered the audited accounts received by Income Tax Department from DDIT(E), Cir. 17(1), Bangalore, as accounts of the assessee, ISKCON India’s Bangalore branch and proceeded further for making its proper assessment in the hands of the ISKCON India.

ii) That the assessee trust (ISKCON India) was regularly assessed to under this Directorate. The assessee trust was also known as ISKCON India as per its audited final accounts. One of the branches/centres of the assessee trust, commonly known as or referred to as ISKCON Bangalore since its inception in about 1979-80 till the A.Y.2000-01 was being assessed as part of the assessee trust.

iii) The DDIT(E) Cir 17(1), Bangalore stated the following facts to then DDIT(E)-II(1), Mumbai:-

a) ISKCON Bangalore had been filing its return of income in this charge since A.Y.2000-01 onwards. ISKCON Bangalore did not file the returns of income prior to A.Y.2000-2001.

b) Assessee ISKCON Bangalore is registered under Section 12A vide registration 7/01/88. At the time of assessment proceedings, the assessee, i.e., ISKCON Bangalore had stated that they have been submitting their accounts to ISKCON Mumbai for consolidation with their accounts.

iv) It has been noted from the Assessment Order passed in case of assessee i.e., ISKCON India for the Assessment year 2001-2002, that:-

The registered ISKCON Bangalore had simply attempted to take advantage of regulations under Karnataka Societies Registration Act and the Income Tax Act because the same accounts of assessee Bangalore branch was suddenly filed with the DDIT(E), Cir 17(1), Bangalore without having the consent of the assessee trust and prior approval of the A.O. which was untenable. It was found that no authority or power had been given to the registered Bangalore Society to submit the accounts of assessee trust’s Bangalore branch for and from the A.Y.2000-2001 onwards in the name of registered Bangalore Society with the assessing officer at Bangalore.

24.4 From the above, it is apparent that Financial Statement of ISKCON Defunct were prepared from the Books of Accounts of ISKCON India Bangalore’s Branch. However, the Committee did not give much importance to the above-said findings as the ownership of Bangalore branch was disputed.

24.5 However, the Committee noted that the respondent had denied that he was auditor of ISKCON India for the financial year 1990-1991. In this context, it has been noted that even in case where the respondent was

24 not auditor of ISKCON India, than in that case also, the question arise as to how he has signed two set of Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 1991 of ISKCON Defunct, Bangalore on different dates showing the different financial position of ISKCON Defunct. Therefore, the respondent is guilty of professional Misconduct falling under clause (7) of Part I of Second Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

24.6 With regard to the change that all the Financial Statements from the year 1988-1989 to 2000- 2001were signed by the respondent, which were filed in one stroke in 2001, the Committee observed that respondent carried out audit and signed the Financial Statement for the aforesaid years, which appears to have been prepared from Books of Accounts of ISKCON India Bangalore’s Branch. All the Balance Sheets from 1998-1999 to 1999- 2000 were filed in one stroke, and there was an order of the Income Tax Directorate Exemption, which stated that whatever had been filed was the replica of the branch account of ISKCON India. Further, the respondent did not submit any specific submission denying that the same were not prepared from one set of books. Therefore, he is guilty of “other Misconduct” falling within the meaning of Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

24.7 The Committee noted that the respondent had signed the audit report and financial statements of ISKCON Defunct for the accounting years 1991-1992 to 1997-1998 on behalf of the firm, V.L.V. and Company despite the fact that the said firm was closed on 01st June 1992. Further, the respondent also signed a certificate dated 25.01.2005 verifying the books of accounts and other records of M/s. ISKCON, Bangalore on behalf of the firm, M/s. V.L.V. and Associates. The said firm, M/s. V.L.V. and Associates, was closed on 22.12.2003. Therefore, it is amply clear that the respondent deliberately signed Audit Reports, Financial Statements and Certificate on behalf of the firm, which was not in existence at the time of signing of the Audit Reports, Financial Statements and certificate. Therefore, the respondent is guilty of ‘Other Misconduct’ falling within the meaning of Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

On the basis of the aforesaid observations the Disciplinary Committee concluded that the respondent no.2 is guilty of professional misconduct falling within the meaning of Clauses (7) of Part I of Second Schedule to the Act and ‘other misconduct’ within the meaning of Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act.

26 The second respondent had challenged the said report by way of a writ petition before this court in WP 26687/2011. The said petition was disposed of in the following terms :

“i. It is open to the petitioner to seek all the documents to which the disciplinary Committee has referred to and relied upon in the report, if they are not furnished already. If the petitioner desires to have any further/other documents, he may apply for the same within a period of two weeks from today to the Council. The Council shall supply these documents, if they are having those documents, within a period of two weeks therefrom.

ii. It is open to the petitioner to appear before the Council on the next date of hearing, which, according to the respondents, will be some time in December 2012, either in person and / or through his representative, as indicated in the notice dated 27.9.2012, and argue the case before the Council. In addition, the petitioner is also allowed to place on record the written submissions before the Council.

iii. I hope and trust that the Council shall deal with all the contentions that will be raised by the petitioner including the contention regarding maintainability of the complaint.

iv. It is needless to mention that the complainant also will have a right of audience before the Council.

All contentions of the parties in the present writ petition are kept open.”

On a detailed consideration of written representations and oral submissions, the Council has decided not to accept the Report of the Disciplinary Committee. And accordingly has held that respondent no. 2 was not guilty of professional misconduct. The reasons for the Council's findings are found at paragraphs 13 to 15 of the impugned Order.

The petitioner’s first charge was that the second respondent had signed two sets of balance sheets as on 31st March 1991 of ISKCON, Bangalore on different dates showing different financial positions. The Council noted that though the petitioner had enclosed along with the complaint two financial statements alleged to have been audited by the 2nd respondent dated 04.10.1991 and 29.10.1991 respectively, the second balance sheet

28 was a two page document only containing Income and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet of ISKCON Defunct Bangalore for year ending 31.03.1991 and neither had the audit report nor the schedules which form part of the financial statements. The Council noted that the second respondent contended that the second set is a forged document, that in the absence of the complete set, the veracity and authenticity of the document could not be established, that none of the audit report annexed with the complaint was not in Form 10B or in the format as required to be under BPT and had mention of the words ‘Branch’ or ‘ISKCON Bombay’ or ‘ISKCON India’, and that the petitioner had not enclosed any branch audit report to establish on record that the second respondent had in fact signed the audit report for one of the branches of ‘ISKCON India’. On a perusal of the audit report signed by the 2nd respondent on 04.10.1991, it was noted by the Council that the second respondent had addressed the said report to the members of ‘ISKCON Defunct Bangalore’ and issued the same to a ‘Society’ and not to any

29 branch as the same was not in the branch format. Hence the Council decided not to accept the Report of the Disciplinary Committee with respect to this Charge. The petitioner’s second charge was that the second respondent had signed the audit report and financial statements of ‘ISKCON Bangalore’ for period when the firm was closed. After noting the submission of the second respondent and perusing the records, the Council found that on the date when the second respondent attested and signed the certificate i.e., 25.01.2005 on behalf of the firm M/s. V LV and Associates, the name of the said firm was re-approved and restored, and hence the status of the firm was very much ‘active’ and not closed on that date. With regard to the second leg of the charge that the second respondent has signed the audit report and financial statement for the accounting year 1991-1992 to 1997-1998 on behalf of the firm M/s. V L V and Company when the said firm was closed with effect from 01.06.1992, the Council noted the submissions of the second respondent that vide his letter dated 03.06.1992 informing

30 about dissolution, the second respondent intended the dissolution of the partnership and not the dissolution of the ‘firm’ (sic) (The council apparently meant ‘proprietary concern’) namely, M/s. V L V and Company. Thus, the Council noted that the intent of the second respondent was not to dissolve the ‘firm’ but to dissolve the partnership and that he continued to sign as proprietor of the ‘firm’. Therefore the Council was of the opinion that benefit of doubt could be given to the respondent on this account, and decided not to accept the report of the Disciplinary Committee with respect to this charge. The Council also noted that the allegations were a result of inter-se dispute between the managements of ‘ISKCON Bombay’ and ‘ISKCON Bangalore’. The Council also noted that various proceedings were pending in courts of law and there was nothing on record to show that the respondent had acted in connivance with ISKCON Bangalore. It was clear that the annual accounts of ‘ISKCON Bangalore’ audited by the second respondent had been misused and misinterpreted for their internal ongoing legal

31 proceedings between ‘ISKCON MUMBAI’ and ‘ISKCON Bangalore’. However, nothing had been brought on record to show that the respondent had acted in connivance with ISKCON Bangalore, and accordingly the Council held that the second respondent not guilty of the charges alleged against him. The Council of the first respondent has arrived at its factual findings on a consideration of the submissions and records placed before it. It is trite law that this Court should not interfere with the findings of a professional body such as the first respondent when procedure as per law has been followed. Therefore, the petition does not merit consideration and is dismissed. Incidentally, the counsel for respondent no.2 has sought to demonstrate that certain crucial documents, which were the basis for the allegations against the second respondent, are clearly doctored. It was contended that the interpolation is patent and has been exposed by due verification by the concerned civil court before which the document had been produced and marked. This

32 court has not chosen to examine the same more closely, in view of the petition being dismissed and in order to give a quietus to the matter.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv*