Vs. Shri Surendra Kumar Surana

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 08, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1118657

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1118657
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Girish Chandra Gupta
Decided On: Jan 08, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Respondent

Shri Surendra Kumar Surana

Excerpt

.....an order dated 8th january, 2013. however, the time granted by the division bench for conclusion of the proceedings was varied by their lordships by the following order: “the time granted by the high court for completion of proceedings will commence from today.” by this application the applicant has prayed for extension of time to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings. mr.mandal, learned advocate for the respondent, submitted that the time has already expired on 7th april, 2013. the application belatedly taken out on 23rd september, 2013 cannot be entertained. the learned advocate for the applicant, however, submitted that for lack of quorum the proceedings could not be taken up. whatever prevented the might have applicant from been the concluding reasons, the which may proceedings, we have are unable to pass an order as prayed for. the order passed by the division bench on 21st march, 2012 granting three months time to conclude the proceedings merged in the order dated 8th january, 2013 passed by the supreme court. it is, therefore, the time stipulated by the supreme court and not by the high court which is operative. it is not for us to modify the order of the supreme court. the applicant may approach, if he so advised, the hon’ble supreme court seeking appropriate order. the application is, thus, disposed of. (girish chandra gupta, j.) (tapash mookherjee, j.) sm ar[cr].

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.2966 of 2013 ACA No.1 of 2011 THE COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHATERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA Versus SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR SURANA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 8th January, 2014.

Appearance : Mr.Sarbapriya Mukherjee with Mr.Soumabho Ghose, Advocates Mr.Aniruddha Mitra with Mr.A.Mandal, Advocates The Court : ACA No.1 of 2011 was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 21st March, 2012 by the following order: “We, accordingly, set aside the order of the Council and remand the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law.

This shall be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of the signed photocopy of this order.” Aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench, the applicant before us preferred a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by an order dated 8th January, 2013.

However, the time granted by the Division Bench for conclusion of the proceedings was varied by Their Lordships by the following order: “The time granted by the High Court for completion of proceedings will commence from today.” By this application the applicant has prayed for extension of time to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings.

Mr.Mandal, learned advocate for the respondent, submitted that the time has already expired on 7th April, 2013.

The application belatedly taken out on 23rd September, 2013 cannot be entertained.

The learned advocate for the applicant, however, submitted that for lack of quorum the proceedings could not be taken up.

Whatever prevented the might have applicant from been the concluding reasons, the which may proceedings, we have are unable to pass an order as prayed for.

The order passed by the Division Bench on 21st March, 2012 granting three months time to conclude the proceedings merged in the order dated 8th January, 2013 passed by the Supreme Court.

It is, therefore, the time stipulated by the Supreme Court and not by the High Court which is operative.

It is not for us to modify the order of the Supreme Court.

The applicant may approach, if he so advised, the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking appropriate order.

The application is, thus, disposed of.

(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (TAPASH MOOKHERJEE, J.) sm AR[CR].

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties vs Shri Surendra Kumar Surana Same Subject Education Same Judge Girish Chandra Gupta