Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : P. Mohanasundaram Vs President, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.A. No. 1662 of 2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/04/2013
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

P. Mohanasundaram

Versus

President, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

12 Comments

  1. Balaji says:

    Good Judgment, But I have a doubt.
    Being a Hindu he got this punishment, what about a Muslim CA, they were allowed to have 4 wives at a time. when we are going to have a common civil act.

  2. vswami says:

    @vswami

    Hastening to add: All said, but that there could be no two views that any social evil of the kind, such as ‘bigamy’, is a product of a obnoxiously sick mindset, hence must be eschewed at all cost – by one and all, not excluding a member of any august profession. Ought to be so, whatever be the surrounding compulsions of the times.

  3. vswami says:

    Impromptu:

    In rejecting the contention of the appellant , -“that involvement of a person in an offence of bigamy is not coming within the purview of “moral turpitude”-, the court is seen to have gone into and mainly relied on the very wide dictionary meaning of the said concept (Para 23).

    According to an independent but impartial view, however, the point of instant and spontaneous concern, which could have been more sufficiently stressed and persuasively urged by the aggrieved CA, – is this: Whether, in the context/for the purposes of the subject enactment for CA profession , the concept of ‘moral turpitude’ ought to be construed in a restricted sense; that is, not so widely as to bring within its ambit / mischief any or all such unrelated matters profoundly of ‘personal’ nature. Especially,if it has no direct nexus or correlation or whatever, to the ideological concepts- such as,”Disabilities’ (Para 8), or professional ethics, or misconduct, within the parameters/realm of the prescribed code of conduct. Further that, a CA is not a‘public servant’ or a ‘government servant’, in the true sense,and certainly not in the given context, as appears to have been the case in some of the court judgments relied on by the OP.

    As may be readily foreseen or visualized, the view the court has taken has the obvious potentials for far-reaching unpalatable consequences to the CAs in practice, particularly in the modern day environments.

    Of course, one has to wait for the outcome of further proceedings, in the instant case itself and / or in other like cases not to be ruled out, for knowing better what is in store for the future.

  4. Pranav says:

    I think mistake done by appellant in present WP is that he did not appear in person on 13th. He took ICAI for ride by his reply. Had appellant gave personal hearing matter could have been different. His reply itself made wrong for him. Moreover, the wife was guided by brilliant brain who advised her to send copy of case to ICAI for removal of name.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
March 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31