I understand that it includes highlighting professional matters. But in PE more than interpretation we have to understand pattern.
Sending letters is principally covered in clause 6, clarifications and permissions are also given in clause 6. So even if professional attainments are highlighted court has generally applied clause 6, below are list of various cases involving sending letters whee clause 6 is applied.
A letter is sent by a Chartered Accountant in practice to the Ministry of Finance inquiring whether a panel of auditors is being maintained by the Ministry and if so to include his name in the panel (CV enclosed)
M, a practicing Chartered Accountant sent a letter to another firm of Chartered Accountants, claiming himself to be a pioneer in liasoning with Central Government Ministries and its allied Departments for getting vanous Government clearances for which he had claimed to have expertise and had given a list of his existing clients and details of his staff etc.
Mr. X, a Chartered Accountant and the proprietor of X & Co., wrote several letters to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies stating that though his firm was on the panel of auditors, no audit work was allotted to the firm and further requested him to look into the matter.
Mr. Honest, a Chartered Accountant in practice, wrote two letters to M/s XY Chartered Accountants a firm of CAs; requesting them to allot him some professional work. As he did not have a significant practice or clients he also wrote a letter to M/s ABC, a firm of Chartered Accountants for securing professional work. Mr. Clever, an another CA, informed ICAI regarding Mr. Honest‘s approach to secure the professional work. Is Mr. Honest wrong in soliciting professional work?
A member had issued a circular letter highlighting his attainments and offering his professional services. He was found guilty in terms of this Clause 6
(R.K. Chawla in Re: – Page 61 of Vol. VI(2) of Disciplinary Cases -Decided on 29th, 30th and 31st December, 1987)
A member issued a printed circular letter to a Company highlighting the details of his professional attainments and services which he could render in various fields offering his professional services on a
contractual basis. He was found guilty in terms of this clause 6.
(Parimal Majumder in Re: – Page 333 of Vol. VI(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Decided on 11th,12th,13th and 14th September, 1989)
A member wrote a letter to a Company in standard format highlighting his expertise in Sales tax matters and had requested for a draft of Rs. 200/- if his knowledge of the Sales tax matters has been found
worthwhile. The member was found guilty in terms of this Clause 6
(K.A. Gupta in Re: – Page 371 of Vol. VI(2) of Disciplinary Cases -Decided on 18th, 19th and 20th December, 1989)
Where a Chartered Accountant had addressed an undated but signed letter to a Bank requesting for empanelment of his firm as auditor alongwith the particulars of his firm showing the past experience and
other details of the firm; and a Member of Parliament had also sent a letter to the Bank recommending the name of the said Chartered Accountants firm for immediate empanelling for Internal Audit/Inspection Audit/Management Audit, Expenditure Audit. Held that the member was guilty under clause (6) of Part I of the First Schedule.
(Naresh C. Agarwal in Re: – Page 160 of Vol.VII(2) of Disciplinary Cases – Council’s decision dated 16th to 18th July, 1992)
but ca in practice can ask for work from other ca in practice. it is an exception under clause 6.so he is not guilty but he advertise his professional attainments which is covered under clause 7
In many cases of PE clause application is not verbatim word by word or through interpretation, if you have seen lectures i have explained, clause coverage depends on is it related to any particular clarification issued by ICAI and pattern followed.
i know this may appear little unusual but we have to follow patterns to score marks, application of clauses by courts has a pattern, we cannot say it grossly right or wrong so we have to follow it.