- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC rejects PIL against ICAI’s transfer of Rs. 15 crore to PM CARES fund
The Delhi High Court on August 25, refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) opposing the decision of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to transfer Rs. 15 crore to the PM CARES fund. According to the Court, it appeared to be a “motivated” plea against the President of the institution.A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan asked...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court on August 25, refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) opposing the decision of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to transfer Rs. 15 crore to the PM CARES fund. According to the Court, it appeared to be a “motivated” plea against the President of the institution.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan asked the petitioner’s counsel to either withdraw the matter or face dismissal with costs. The counsel for the petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the plea and the court dismissed it as withdrawn.
During the hearing via video conference, the bench asked the petitioner, as to how a PIL could be filed when the members of ICAI were not aggrieved by the transfer of funds and that they contributed on their own wish.
“If the members of ICAI are happy to contribute, then what are the grounds for a PIL,” the court asked and added, “this appears to be a motivated petition against the President of the institution”.
Besides transferring Rs. 15 crore to the PM CARES fund in April, ICAI also pledged an additional Rs. 6 crore via contributions from its members.
According to the petitioner, the decision was taken by the institution on a request made by the then Secretary of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).