DARE TO DAYARAM DAS,
‘I will reward you Rs.10,000,000 if you find all of these words ‘Branch’, ‘ISKCON Mumbai’ or ‘ISKCON India’ in the audit reports and financial statement of ISKCON Bangalore and that there is an annexure to the audited report (in 4.10.91 page 1 of audit report with my round seal and signature). Else, are you ready to pay me Rs.100,000,000/-?’
If you chicken out or can’t find these words, stop all your false propaganda and surrender to Bangalore police, Ulsoor police station, who are looking for you in the fraud and forgery case, and you are on the run absconding. You are well aware of this as your accomplice Varada Krishna Dasa would have told you that he was taken to station and interrogated the local police and he made a statement there stating that all forgery, fraud on 90-91 audited statement of VLV and forged seal of Hon’ble Civil Court are known only to Dayaram Das, I was only a translator. So anytime it is possible that he may turn approver. He has taken anticipatory bail and got conditional bail is known to you.
Well, anyone who can read English can find that Council findings is correct. It is common sense that without word branch, a branch audit report can’t be made. Well, legally BPT Act does not extend beyond Maharashtra and hence a BPT trust can’t have branch outside Maharashtra.
NO STATUTORY APPEAL
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 has no provision for appeal to the Complainants and hence even Complainants can’t appeal.
The only legal possibility is to file a Writ Petition before Hon’ble HC of Karnataka. However, fact is Dayaram Das was before the very same HC as respondent in wP26687/2011 wherein CA.V.L. Varadarajan (VLV) was petitioner. Dayaram Das he admitted and supported report of DC of ICAI and did not submit that DC report is incorrect. In fact DC report’s finding was No balance sheet is given by CA.V.L.Varadarajan to ISKCON Mumbai, since it held that both balance sheets filed by Dayaram Das are that of ISKCON Bangalore. ICAI Council has confirmed the same.
Dayaram Dasa was the complainant in ICAI and he categorically stated that the complaint is on behalf of ISKCON India. Dayaram Das admitted that ISKCON India is not ISKCON Mumbai in OS7934/2001. So, ISKCON Mumbai can’t appeal.
ADMISSION IN CIVIL CASE ISKCON BANGALORE VS. BOMBAY
In OS7934/2001, in an affidavit Dayaram Dasa categorically admitted that ‘there is no entity registered or otherwise as ISKCON India’, but ISKCON Mumbai is registered entity under societies registration Act, 1860 and it is registered as a Public Trust for its operations in Maharashtra under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Thus, by admission ISKCON India(non entity not registered) is not ISKCON Bombay(an entity as society & registered under BPT). However, the complaint was instituted between Dayaram Das against CA.V.L. Varadarajan.
LYING ABOUT REPRESENTATION
Dayaram Das is hiding the fact that he had filed written representation before ICAI. There is no statutory right for him to be present before Council but yet council gave notice to appear. He deliberately did not appear for the reason he had no originals or proof of engagement of VLV.
However, the written representation was considered and it did not provide proof or opposition to DC report except stating that 4.10.91 balance sheet is a branch balance sheet. Council of ICAI found even the photocopy filed are not having words ‘Branch’ without which it is not a branch balance sheet. It also found that ‘ISKCON Mumbai’ or ‘ISKCON India’ words are not in it, without which it is not their audit report.
POWERS OF ICAI
Disciplinary committee (DC) is a small committee of 5 persons out of 40 member council. DC reports to Council on disciplinary cases on CAs, but has no power to hold guilty. Council alone has powers to hold guilty for complaint under First Schedule. Dayaram Das complained under the Second Schedule, in which case, HC of Karnataka alone can hold guilty, if Council finds a member guilty and recommends its findings to HC. If member is not held guilty the proceedings as per the Act ends there.
ICAI ULTIMATE EXPERT ON ACCOUNTS
Council is the governing authority of CA Institute and ultimate authority on accounts and audit. Council rejected the DC report dt.10.2.2011. CA Institute is the sole authority to license auditors and bring accounts and auditing standards and there is no expert other than them to tell whether an audit report or accounts is of a branch or society.
Contrary to their claim in complaint and in legal proceedings Council found ‘ISKCON Mumbai has not enclosed any branch audit report to establish on record that the CA V.L.VARADARAJAN had In fact signed the audit report for one of the Branches of ISKCON India’. All of them were given to ISKCON Bangalore society.
Council held categorically that ‘it found that VLV report is issued to ‘Members of ISKCON Bangalore’ and all audit reports filed with the complaint is issued to a society prepared from books of accounts maintained by a society. Thus, this expression.
ICAI Council have also noted that Dayaram Dasa did not file originals and veracity and authenticity of photocopies cannot be verified. This is basic rule of evidence.
It is interesting to note that Dayaram Das’s Lawyer disappeared in hearing of WP26687/2011 after he was required to provide proof of engagement of VLV and original of 1990-91 Balance sheet in HC on 13.1.2013 and did not appear till 31.1.2013. Well, certainly not to give appointment letters or the originals of 3 page fabricated annexure of which 3rd page had forged signature never filed before Civil Court, ICAI, HC or SC, till date for 13 years. No wonder he disappeared in Council proceedings too.
ICAI are the topmost experts in accounts. There is no two denying it. The Council has not only eminent experienced CAs it also has government nominees from ministries, SEBI etc. The decision of Council was on merits is significant. That too when DC report which said, contrary to Dayaram complaint that 4.10.91 report is a branch report, VLV audit report was given to ISKCON Bangalore and it is admitted by Dayaram in writ proceedings, empty claims in paper are not the way a responsible person will do.
Contempt of Court
I as an advocate and officer of Court condemn statement by AKRURANATHA DASA on 19.6.2013 article that ICAI findings will have no impact on SC case. It is contempt of court. However, it is pertinent to point out that Hon’ble SC of India has ample powers to receive evidence even at appeal stage and is not bound by precedents, in the interest of Justice.
Regarding HC ruling in RFA423 of 2009 in OS7934 ISKCON Bangalore Vs. Bombay, there were remarks in the passing and they were not decisions of the Court as there was no issue on whether accounts were manipulated. This matter is now before Hon’ble SC under SLP and ISKCON Mumbai & co. refused to accept notice & delayed accepting notices for the same, showing their fear on the decision.
Interestingly ISKCON Mumbai filed DC report as evidence which held contrary to their claim that 4.10.91 statement is their branch statement, Can they now say Council final conclusion can’t be considered, when it confirms the same?