Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Surjit Singh vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd on 21 April, 2008

Joby George vs Thomas Varghese on 19 September, 2011

12.The concept of moral turpitude has fallen for consideration of the Apex Court and of this Court, as also other courts in different occasions. References have been made by the learned counsel for parties to Joy v. State of Kerala [1991(1) KLT 153], Saseendran Nair v. General Manager [1996(2) KLT 482], U.P.Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Braj Kizhore [(1988) 4 SCC 274], Surjit Singh v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. [2008(2) KLT 473(SC)], In re 'P' An Advocate (AIR 1963 SC 1313), Siby Joseph v. State Election Commission [2004(2) KLT 1106], Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri [(2011) 2 SCC 532], Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [1996 (4) SCC 17], Ibrahim Kannu v. State of Kerala [2005(4) KLT 1034], T.Bhagya Laxmi v. Returning MFA214/11 -: 11 :- Officer-cum-Municipal Commissioner [AIR 2009 AP 10], Kuber Swain v. State of Orissa [2009 CRI.L.J.1608] and Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank [2010(8) SCC 573]. All those precedents essentially stand to advise that the concept of moral turpitude always depends upon the conduct for which the offender stands convicted and sentenced. It is not merely one that has to be decided with reference to the definition of any particular offence in the penal laws. It has to be examined and appreciated as to whether the conduct attributed is relevant to the purpose for which the quality of a conduct is to be looked into. It is in this context that it has to be said that if a person who is lawfully entitled to be present in a Grama Sabha raises questions and asks for disclosure of accounts, he cannot be put under any threat or duress. None protected by the Indian Constitution can be made voiceless by threat or duress. Grass-root level public institutions like Grama Sabhas are the ground fields where the MFA214/11 -: 12 :- citizens are expected to bring out their grievance and discuss matters in relation to the development of the society. If any such person is threatened or attacked even after the Grama Sabha, in the public road, that is nothing but a challenge to the societal existence of the local self government institution of a grass-root level, i.e., a Grama Sabha. Physical prowess, financial clout, political or other considerations cannot, at any point of time, be accepted as a social norm when it threatens the core rights of the citizens in relation to a grass-root level institution like Grama Sabha. The purpose of Grama Sabha and the need to have governance to the grass-root is, ultimately, intended also for self empowerment. The empowerment of the citizens cannot be had under duress and threat by those who are capable of such actions. In the context of the transaction involved in the criminal cases in hand, the respondent stands convicted of offence where a group of persons questioned the victim and retorted against MFA214/11 -: 13 :- him for having asked for accounts in the Grama Sabha. That followed the overt acts by which the victim was found to have suffered. We are not on the quality of injuries or the nature of assaults. Those may be matters for concern in the criminal revision. But, here, we are clear in our mind that the conviction of the respondent under Sections 143, 147 and 323 IPC as they now stand and the sentence imposed on him is for a conduct which amounts to an offence involving moral turpitude. This is clearly so in the context of the fact that what is being examined is the quality of the conduct of one who is competing to hold a post of public nature, with public accountability. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and OP(Election).No.37 of 2010 of the Court of the District Judge, Thodupuzha is allowed setting aside the election of the respondent from Ward No.VI of Parathodu Constituency of B56 of Nedumkandom Block Panchayat held on 25.10.2010 and declared on MFA214/11 -: 14 :- 27.10.2010 on the ground that he was disqualified from being chosen as and for being a member of that panchayat on ground under section 34(1)(b)(i) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. No costs. The office is directed to communicate the judgment to the State Election Commission and the Nedumkandom Block Panchayat and other officials as required under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules immediately.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Ramar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 9 April, 2014

30. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (16) SCC 722 (Surjit Singh Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited) , more particularly, the observation made therein with regard to interpretation of statutes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in exceptional cases the literal rule can be departed from and that one has to consider the context in which a statute has been made and the purpose and object which it seeks to achieve. The relevant paragraph 22 is extracted hereunder:-
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - K R Baabu - Full Document
1   2 3 Next