SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1820

High Court of Judicature at Madras
R.K. AGRAWAL & N. PAUL VASANTHKUMAR, JJ.
P. Mohanasundaram
Versus
The President, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Another
W.A. No. 1662 of 2010
Decided On : 30-04-2013

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Sankara Subbu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Krishna Srinivasan, M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates,
Advocates.

Headnote:Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, Sections 8 and 20 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 494 Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, Regulation 18 – Member is disqualified as he was convicted for bigamy. He was married to another women while first manager was still existing. The disqualification is valid.

       Administrative Law – Matter should be reopened against the appellant as to whether he was guilty of professional misconduct. Institute did not know earlier that he was involved in bigamy. Reopening of matter is justified.

       Administrative Law – A person who doesnot appear despite notice being served on him for appearance cannot later raise the point that natural justice was violated.

Judgment:

R.K. Agrawal, A.C.J. & N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.12069 of 2010 dated 26.7.2010 rejecting the request of the appellant to quash the order passed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi, dated 16.4.2010, as published in the Government of India Official Gazette dated 19.2.2010.

2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned single Judge runs as follows:

(a) Appellant/writ petition is a qualified Chartered Accountant, having passed examinations conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in the year 1975 and enrolled his name as Member of the Southern India Regional Council, Chennai – 34.

(b) In the year 1984 matrimonial dispute arose between the appellant and his wife, which resulted in granting of divorce decree by the first Additional Family Court, Chennai on 13.11.2003, and the said divorce decree was confirmed by this Court in C.M.A.No.816 of 2005, judgment dated 7.9.2007.

(c) Before the said divorce decree was passed by the Family Court, the appellant's estranged wife filed a complaint in the year 1990 before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, under section 494 IPC alleging bigamy. The learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, tried the said complaint in C.C.No.8575 of 1990 and convicted the appellant and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by judgment dated 10.5.1999.

(d) The appellant preferred criminal appeal in C.A.No.131 of 1999 before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, who confirmed the conviction and sentence by judgment dated 24.1.2000. The appellant, having aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, challenged the judgment in Crl.R.C.No.602 of 2000 before this Court and by judgment dated 13.2.2003, this Court confirmed the conviction and reduced the period of sentence to six months from one year.

(e) Against the said order of this Court, appellant filed SLP (Crl)No.1658 of 2003, which was later on numbered as Criminal Appeal No.1385 of 2003 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 14.11.2003 modified the sentence as already suffered by the appellant and disposed of the appeal.

(f) According to the appellant, on 17.9.1997, his estranged wife filed a complaint before the first respondent under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, enclosing copy of the criminal complaint filed before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, and also forwarded copy of the judgment. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India communicated its order to the appellant on 3.2.2004 holding that the appellant was not guilty of any professional or other misconduct, which decision was taken on 29.1.2004.

(g) After a lapse of four years and 11 months, that was on 5.7.2009, the first respondent re-opened the said issue and sent a letter to the appellant stating that the conviction for bigamous marriage involves moral turpitude and therefore as per section 8 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the appellant has to appear for an enquiry on 13.1.2009 at New Delhi to explain as to why his name should not be removed from the rolls/Register of Members. On 5.1.2009 the appellant sent a letter stating that by order dated 29.1.2004, the appellant was held 'not guilty of any professional or other misconduct' by considering the orders of the criminal court, including that of the Supreme Court dated 14.11.2003 and therefore no action need be initiated for the concluded matter.

(h) The first respondent, on 16.4.2010 passed an order removing the name of the appellant from the register of members. The said order was challenged on the ground that the appellant having been given a clean chit by order dated 29.1.2004, the first respondent was not justified in removing the name of appellant from the register on the ground of disqualification and the said order was passed in violation of Article 20 of the Co



















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top