Facts of the
Case
The complainant, Shri Leif Baecklund, acting as
Bankruptcy Receiver of Quinn Investments Sweden AB and its group entities,
filed a complaint against the respondent, CA Raghu Marwah of M/s R.N. Marwah
& Co., alleging serious professional misconduct. The allegations arose from
purported service agreements dated 15.06.2011 and FEMA Advisory Service
agreements dated 04.05.2011 entered into by the respondent firm with Quinn
Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. and Quinn Lodgings India Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged
that these agreements were sham and commercially unreasonable, that no services
were actually rendered, and that false invoices of unusually high value were
raised.
It was further alleged that the respondent
suppressed material facts and initiated parallel legal proceedings before the
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Patiala House Courts, Delhi,
obtaining ex-parte and winding-up orders by misrepresentation and without
disclosing relevant proceedings, thereby obstructing the Bankruptcy Receiver
from taking control of company assets.
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 entering into sham agreements, raising
false invoices without rendering services, and suppressing material facts
before courts, thereby bringing disrepute to the profession.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The complainant contended that the respondent
deliberately entered into collusive service agreements containing abnormal
clauses restraining removal of directors, which were not part of normal
commercial practice. It was argued that the respondent raised inflated
invoices, manipulated voucher numbering, and simultaneously approached multiple
courts to secure favourable orders by concealing material facts. Such conduct,
according to the complainant, was intended to defeat insolvency proceedings and
constituted grave misconduct unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The respondent denied the allegations and claimed
that genuine FEMA advisory and professional services were rendered pursuant to
valid engagement letters. He contended that invoices were raised in the normal
course of business, that withdrawal of court proceedings was due to commercial
considerations and litigation costs, and that disciplinary proceedings should
not continue once the complainant sought to withdraw the complaint. The
respondent also pleaded that he suffered financial loss and reputational damage
and sought a lenient view.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Board of Discipline examined the service
agreements, engagement letters, invoices, accounting records, court orders and
the sequence of legal proceedings. The Board observed that the conditions
incorporated in the purported service agreements were commercially unreasonable
and not reflective of bona fide professional engagements. It was noted that a
substantial portion of the respondent’s billing during the relevant period
related only to the two companies in question, that invoices carried suspicious
numbering, and that services claimed were not substantiated by evidence.
The Board further found that the respondent had
approached different judicial forums within a short span of time, suppressed
material facts, and adopted inconsistent stands before courts. The conduct was
held to be pre-planned and aimed at creating legal complications to the
detriment of the complainant and other stakeholders. The Board concluded that
the respondent’s actions demonstrated lack of integrity, misuse of professional
position, and conduct clearly unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant.
Important
Clarification
The Board clarified that raising false or doubtful
invoices, entering into sham agreements, and suppressing material facts before
courts strike at the core of professional integrity. Even where civil disputes
or insolvency proceedings are involved, a Chartered Accountant is expected to
act transparently and ethically, failing which disciplinary action is
warranted.
Final
Outcome
The Board of Discipline, ICAI, held that CA
Raghu Marwah was GUILTY of Other Misconduct under Item (2) of Part IV of
the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 read with Section 22.
In exercise of powers under Section 21A(3), the Board removed his name from
the Register of Members for a period of three months and imposed a fine
of ₹1,00,000, payable within 60 days from receipt of the order, by order
dated 21.05.2024.
Source Link - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768817052_ShriLeifBaecklundBankruptcyReceivervs.CARaghuMarwahBoardofDisciplineICAI.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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment