Facts of the Case

The complainant, Ms. Kala Somani, an elderly lady aged about 82 years, filed a complaint against the respondent, CA Prasan Kumar Deshlahra, alleging mental harassment, illegal occupation of her house, obstruction in transfer of property after the demise of her husband, physical intimidation, and receipt of ₹15 lakhs for vacating the premises. The background of the dispute was that the respondent and his family were permitted to stay in the complainant’s house due to a family partition dispute faced by the respondent. After the death of the complainant’s husband, disputes arose regarding ownership of the property. The complainant relied on an unregistered will dated 15.09.2017 allegedly executed by her husband in her favour, whereas the respondent relied on two registered wills dated 07.11.2009 and 29.06.2015 under which he claimed rights in the property. The complainant alleged that the respondent attempted to manipulate documents when her husband was ill and later threatened the family, leading to prolonged civil and criminal disputes. A complaint was also lodged with the police, and the matter was brought before the ICAI alleging Other Misconduct.

Issues Involved

Whether the respondent Chartered Accountant was guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for alleged harassment, misuse of influence, and wrongful acts connected with property transfer, and whether the ICAI Board of Discipline had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of competing wills and property ownership.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The complainant contended that the respondent mentally harassed her, prevented lawful transfer of property after her husband’s death, did not allow her and her daughters to enter their own house, physically harmed her, and extracted ₹15 lakhs under coercion to vacate the premises. It was argued that such conduct amounted to Other Misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act. The complainant relied on police complaints, an unregistered will dated 15.09.2017, a compromise agreement, and video clips allegedly showing obstruction and harassment.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent denied all allegations and submitted that the dispute was purely civil in nature relating to ownership of property based on competing wills. He relied on two registered wills dated 07.11.2009 and 29.06.2015 executed by the complainant’s husband, which conferred rights on him. The respondent submitted that the alleged unregistered will dated 15.09.2017 was forged and produced belatedly. It was further contended that the payment of ₹15 lakhs was a voluntary amount agreed upon under a registered compromise deed dated 30.12.2017 towards rent and maintenance expenses, and not for vacating the premises. The respondent also pointed out that police examination did not establish criminal wrongdoing and that multiple civil and revenue proceedings were already pending before appropriate forums.

Court Order / Findings

The Board of Discipline examined the documentary evidence and submissions of both parties. The Board noted that the core dispute revolved around ownership of the property of the complainant’s late husband based on competing wills, one unregistered relied upon by the complainant and two registered wills relied upon by the respondent. The Board observed that the compromise deed dated 30.12.2017 established that the payment of ₹15 lakhs was voluntary and agreed upon for rent and property maintenance, and there was no evidence that it was paid for vacating the premises. The Board further noted that issues relating to validity of wills, ownership of property, residence rights, and alleged harassment arising therefrom are matters squarely falling within the domain of civil courts and revenue authorities. Holding that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and beyond the jurisdiction of the ICAI disciplinary mechanism, the Board concurred with the Prima Facie Opinion of the Director (Discipline) that no professional or other misconduct was established.

Important Clarification

The Board clarified that the ICAI disciplinary framework is not a forum to adjudicate civil property disputes arising out of competing wills or succession claims. Allegations of Other Misconduct must be directly connected with professional conduct or behaviour unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant, supported by cogent evidence, and not merely arise from private civil disputes.

Final Outcome

The Board of Discipline, ICAI, held that CA Prasan Kumar Deshlahra was NOT GUILTY of Other Misconduct under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The complaint was closed under Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007, by order dated 07.05.2024.

Source Link - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768816252_Ms.KalaSomanivs.CAPrasanKumarDeshlahraBoardofDisciplineICAI.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.