Karnataka HC ‘bends the course of justice’ to nominate student as ICAI member
Bengaluru: Karnataka’s Superior Tribunal said giving a seat to a student was appropriate to “double the scope of justice”
ICAI had invoked Regulation 65 of the institute and said that it had given permission only for the final courses, but the student had completed several basic courses before the final courses.
In a recent judgment, the Tribunal reviewed this argument and described it as a “dispute on thin ice”, that is, whether the basic courses are included in the final courses and whether the final courses are allowed to continue. Is.
Nikita KJ of Bengaluru approached the tribunal after the institute issued an order/communication dated May 1, 2023, refusing to accept her membership request to act as Contadora Pública.
Nikita enrolled in B.Com and Fundación CMA simultaneously for bachelor’s degree in 2017. He then completed an executive course in computer science in 2018.
He also enrolled in many other courses and completed all of them except B.Com degree. He joined the articleship training of public accountants and sought permission to continue with a BCom degree.
He got permission and completed B.Com in 2020. Later completed CMF final exam and CS professional course. Ultimately he sought enrollment in the institute.
First, looking for clarification on how several courses were operated, the Institute requested their submissions. A fine of Rs 10,000 was also imposed for following various courses.
Before the tribunal of Justice M Nagaprasanna, the institute said that as per Regulation 65, a student enrolled in articleship is prohibited from taking admission in various courses.
However, the student said that every time he requested and received permission to pursue the new course.
The tribunal said in its sentence: “A student does not know the implications of the law. A student only knows how to study and reflect on the material studied. He has studied and completed the course. It is quite surprising that the second respondent wants to close down his career. “A student who has followed a number of courses and gained sufficient insight to practice as a public accountant.”
The tribunal said that the student’s clarity was above the prescribed limit.
“It would be useful to the Institute of Public Accountants and the society, if a student shows more insight than the public accountant himself. Stories of the acts of the second defendant against a student who has only studied and done nothing else, and also, “After requesting permission, this is the second such request by a State in accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution of India Will not be in accordance with what is permitted”, he said.
The tribunal found that the student had taken permission from the institute every time he took up a new course. Therefore the institute can no longer hide behind the rules.
“The petitioner/student has been diligent in obtaining the permit. The powerful demander now wants to jeopardize a student’s career because the permit was not properly granted or the student did not properly request the permit. This act of the second demandant (a faceless institution), the tribunal said.
Reiterating all the institute’s arguments, the tribunal said in its sentence of December 7: “Therefore, this Tribunal re-examines the arguments of counsel for the second plaintiff and, for foreseeable reasons, considers it appropriate to double the arc of justice. Is. Direct concession of membership of the petitioner in the Institute without accepting any further extension for a student.”
The tribunal ordered the institute to “consider the petitioner’s complaints in accordance with law and enroll him as a member of the institute, taking into account the observations made during the course of the order”. He ordered the institute to approve an order within a period of four weeks.
