{"id":196449,"date":"1999-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999"},"modified":"2016-10-05T16:28:33","modified_gmt":"2016-10-05T10:58:33","slug":"thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: S.R.Babu, R.C.Lahoti<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHAMPANOOR RAVI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHARUPARA RAVI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS.R.Babu, R.C.Lahoti\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      RAJENDRA BABU, J.\t :\n<\/p>\n
      Civil  Appeal Nos.  7395-7396 of 1997 The appellant in
\nthese appeals was declared elected to the Kerala Legislative
\nAssembly  from\tNo.  139, Neyyattinkara constituency  in  an
\nelection  held\ton April 27, 1996.  Two\t election  petitions
\nwere filed – one by a voter in that constituency and another
\nby  a  defeated candidate who had secured the  next  highest
\nnumber of votes to the appellant and in his petition a claim
\nwas also made for the declaration that he was duly elected.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  election\t petition  filed by  the  voter\t the
\nelection  of the appellant was challenged on the ground that
\nhe  was\t disqualified  for being chosen as a member  of\t the
\nLegislative  Assembly  as he was an  undischarged  insolvent
\nwithin\tthe meaning of Article 191(1)(c) of the Constitution
\nof  India,  at the time of filing of his nomination, at\t the
\ntime  of his election and even on the date of the filing  of
\nthe  election  petition.   In  the  petition  filed  by\t the
\ndefeated  candidate, in addition to the aforesaid ground  of
\ndisqualification  of the appellant, he also alleged that the
\nappellant  had\tindulged  in corrupt  practices\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of Section 123 of the Representation of the  People
\nAct, 1951 [hereinafter referred to as the R.P.Act].\n<\/p>\n
      The  High Court upheld the contention of the  Election
\nPetitioners   that   the   appellant\thad   incurred\t the
\ndisqualification under Article 191(1)(c) of the Constitution
\nand declared his election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly
\nas  void.   The\t High Court, however,  decided\tagainst\t the
\nElection  Petitioner on the allegation of corrupt practices.
\nHence  there  are two sets of appeals – two by the  returned
\ncandidate  in regard to invalidation of his election to\t the
\nAssembly and the other by Election Petitioner with regard to
\nfindings recorded as to corrupt practices.\n<\/p>\n
      The  principal  issue  to be decided in this  case  is
\nwhether\t the appellant is disqualified for being chosen as a
\nmember\tof the Legislative Assembly on the ground that he is
\nan  undischarged insolvent and whether his election could be
\ndeclared to be void under Section 100 of the R.P.  Act.\t The
\npleadings  raised in this regard are that the appellant is a
\npartner\t of  a\tregistered firm by name\t Kavitha  Printers
\nalong  with P.A.Thomas, Smt.  Krishnamma and Gopeendra Nath;
\nthat  the said firm borrowed a sum of Rs.3,16,000\/- from the
\nKerala\tFinancial Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram;  that the
\npartners  of the firm did not repay the loan in spite of the
\nrepeated  demands;   that the revenue  recovery\t proceedings
\nwere initiated against the appellant in terms of certificate
\ndated  April  22,  1994 issued by  the\tDistrict  Collector,
\nThiruvananthapuram  and at that time the total liability  of
\nthe  partners  of the firm was amounting to  Rs.10,62,000\/-;
\nthat  the  appellant  failed to settle\this  liability\twith
\nKerala\t Financial  Corporation\t till\tthe  filing  of\t his
\nnomination  papers and he was unable to pay the debts in the
\nordinary  course  of business as and when they\tbecame\tdue;
\nthat  the  demand  notice issued by the\t Tehsildar  for\t the
\npurpose\t of revenue recovery also stood returned on  account
\nof  the\t closure  of  the business of the  firm;   that\t the
\nappellant  absented himself from the office of the firm\t and
\ndeliberately  avoided service of notice upon him;  that\t the
\nappellant  was not in a position to repay anything more than
\nRs.3  lakhs  on\t behalf of the firm and, therefore,  he\t was
\ndisqualified  from  being  chosen as a member of  the  State
\nLegislature  as\t he  was  an  undischarged  insolvent,\tthat
\nthereby\t his  election has become void in terms\t of  Article
\n191(1)(c)  of  the Constitution.  In the written  objections
\nfiled,\tthe appellant admitted that he was a partner of\t the
\nfirm  along  with  certain others who are mentioned  in\t the
\npetition,  but claimed that he retired from the\t partnership
\nas  per\t the  report  filed  on July  20,  1985\t before\t the
\nRegistrar  of  Firms.  It was contended that having  severed
\nrelationship  with  the\t firm,\the   had  no  knowledge\t  or
\ninformation as to the plea that the partners of the firm did
\nnot  repay  the loan in spite of the repeated  demands.\t  He
\npleaded that he did not receive any notice under the Revenue
\nRecovery  Act  and  he was not aware of the  fact  that\t any
\nrevenue\t recovery  proceedings were initiated against  other
\npartners of the firm.  The allegation that he was due to pay
\nany  money  to\tthe  Kerala Financial  Corporation  was\t not
\ncorrect\t and  he  did not make any attempt  to\tdeliberately
\navoid  service\tof any notice upon him nor he  has  departed
\nfrom  his  usual place of business so as to defeat or  delay
\nrepayment  of debts due to the Kerala Financial Corporation.
\nHe  claimed  that he was in public life and was a member  of
\nthe  Kerala  State Legislature for five years and  thus\t his
\nofficial  as well as residential addresses were known to the
\nKerala\tFinancial Corporation.\tIt was also claimed that  he
\nhas  not  incurred any disqualification in terms of  Article
\n191(1)(c)  of the Constitution and he has denied that he was
\nan  undischarged insolvent.  In the connected petition,\t the
\nallegations  raised  were  identical and  the  pleadings  in
\nanswer filed by the appellant were also similar.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the  aspect  as  to the  disqualification  of\t the
\nreturned  candidate, the High Court framed Issue Nos.  2-11.
\nThe  High  Court held that the appellant is partner  of\t the
\nfirm  and although he may have retired at the time of filing
\nthe nomination inasmuch as no public notice has been issued,
\nhe  was\t liable jointly with all other partners for all\t the
\nacts  done while he was a partner.  Thus he was a partner at
\nthe  time  of filing his nomination for the election to\t the
\nLegislative  Assembly  in question.  It was further  noticed
\nthat  the appellant continued to be liable for the debts due
\nto  the\t Kerala Financial Corporation.\tIt is held that\t the
\nKerala Financial Corporation has made efforts to realise the
\ndebts  by  getting initiated proceedings under\tthe  Revenue
\nRecovery  Act  but it does not appear that those steps\thave
\nbeen vigorously pursued with.  The High Court also held that
\nthe appellant had avoided service of notice issued to him by
\nthe  Tehsildar,\t Revenue  Recovery and although he  had\t not
\nabsconded  himself  but\t he  was   trying  to  get   himself
\nexonerated from liability without offering to repay anything
\nto  the\t Kerala\t Financial  Corporation\t towards  the  large
\namounts\t due  from him and the other partners of  the  firm.
\nThe  High  Court went on to examine as to whether any  money
\nhad  been  paid\t by the firm of which the  appellant  was  a
\npartner\t and  came to the conclusion that the appellant\t did
\nnot  have  the\tmeans to repay the debt due  to\t the  Kerala
\nFinancial Corporation and held as under :\n<\/p>\n
      On  the  evidence,  it is thus clear that\t the  first
\nrespondent  was and is, a debtor, that he is a debtor who is
\nunable\tand unwilling to pay his debts, that he is not shown
\nto be possessed of assets sufficient to meet his obligations
\nand  consequently, he is an insolvent.\tBut he has not\tbeen
\nadjudicated  an insolvent thus far under the Insolvency\t Act
\neither\t on  an\t application  by   the\tcreditor  or  on  an
\napplication by himself.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter  the  High  Court, in the  absence  of\t the
\ndefinition  of the expression insolvent in the\tProvincial
\nInsolvency  Act,  1920\t[hereinafter  referred\tto  as\tthe
\nInsolvency  Act]  considered  the   nature  of\tproceedings
\narising\t under\tthe Insolvency Act, went on to\tnotice\tthat
\nunder Section 2(8) of the Sale of Goods Act, an insolvent is
\ndefined\t as a person who had ceased to pay his debts in\t the
\nordinary course of business, or cannot pay his debts as they
\nbecome due, whether he has committed an act of insolvency or
\nnot,  and  thereafter referred to various  dictionaries\t and
\nconcluded as follows :\n<\/p>\n
      Suffice  it  to  say  that as far as  I  can  gather,
\ngeneral\t meaning  of  the word insolvent is that he  is\t a
\nperson\twho  is\t unable to pay his debts as  and  when\tthey
\nbecome\tdue  or whose assets are not sufficient to meet\t his
\nobligations  as\t and when they arise.  Looked at  from\tthat
\npoint  of  view and going by the meaning of  the  expression
\ninsolvent as referred to above, it is clear that the first
\nrespondent was an insolvent on the date of the filing of the
\nnomination  by him, on the date of the election, on the date
\nof  filing of the election petition and even on the date  of
\nhis examination in court.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t contention  was raised on behalf of  the  appellant
\nbefore\tthe  High  Court  that\the  has\t not  been  adjudged
\ninsolvent  by  any  court  under   the\tInsolvency  Act\t  as
\napplicable  in\tthe State of Kerala.  So long as he  is\t not
\nadjudged  insolvent  the question of his being\tundischarged
\ninsolvent  would  not  arise  and thereby he  could  not  be
\ndisqualified   in   terms  of\tArticle\t 191(1)(c)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tIn substance the contention is that the High
\nCourt  could not in deciding an election petition hold\tthat
\nthe  appellant\tto  be\tan undischarged\t insolvent  for\t the
\npurposes  of  Article  191(1)(c) of  the  Constitution.\t  In
\nanswer\tto  this  contention, the High\tCourt  examined\t the
\nscheme\t of  different\tclauses\t in   Article  191  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tA  person  who is elected to  a\t legislature
\ncannot\t carry\ton  his\t  duties  fearlessly  without  being
\nsubjected  to Governmental pressure if such a person  enters
\ninto a contract with the Government or holds an office which
\nbrings\thim  remuneration and the Government has a voice  in
\ncontinuance  of\t his contract or office and there  is  every
\nlikelihood  of\tsuch  person  succumbing to  the  wishes  of
\nGovernment  and in order to eliminate such a contingency  it
\nwould  be  appropriate\tto  ensure  that  persons  who\thave
\nreceived   favours  or\tbenefits   from\t the  executive\t are
\ndisqualified  and  in  the same manner if the  appellant  is
\nindebted to the Kerala Financial Corporation he would not be
\na  free\t person\t to  act as a legislator.   The\t High  Court
\nconsidered that this underlying scheme of the Constitutional
\nprovisions  and\t the  R.P.   Act must be borne\tin  mind  in
\ninterpreting  the expression undischarged insolvent  under
\nthe  R.P.Act.  The High Court proceeded to explain that\t the
\nexpression  undischarged insolvent was not defined in  the
\nInsolvency  Act and there is no justification for giving the
\nexpression  a  technical  meaning as was propounded  by\t the
\nappellants  counsel.  The High Court proceeded to give\tthe
\nexpression  undischarged insolvent its natural meaning\tso
\nthat the disqualification applies to any person who is shown
\nto  be\tunable to pay his debts on the relevant\t date.\t The
\nHigh  Court  referred  to  the Debates\tin  the\t Constituent
\nAssembly  and  to the suggestion of Sir Alladi\tKrishnaswamy
\nAyyar  that  the  expression  if   he  is  an  undischarged
\ninsolvent  should  be  in  terms  of  Section  73  of\tthe
\nInsolvency  Act\t but  was not accepted\tby  the\t Constituent
\nAssembly  and held that the framers of the Constitution\t did
\nnot  want  to confine the operation of the  disqualification
\nonly to cases where a person is adjudged insolvent under the
\nInsolvency  Act.   The\tHigh Court ultimately held  that  it
\nwould\tbe   appropriate  to   understand   the\t  expression
\nundischarged  insolvent\t in  its broad and  general  sense
\nrather\tthan  in  the  technical  sense\t of  the  insolvency
\nlegislation.   The  High Court then proceeded to  hold\tthat
\neven  if  a  returning officer may not be in a\tposition  to
\naccept\tan  objection in a case where the objection  is\t not
\nbacked\tby  an order of adjudication by the court, there  is
\nnothing\t standing in the way of the Court to examine such  a
\nquestion.    The  High\tCourt,\t therefore,   accepted\t the
\nsubmission  that the pre-adjudication by an insolvency court
\nis  not required and observed that a candidate who is  found
\nto be an insolvent by the court trying the election petition
\nand  a candidate who had already been adjudicated  insolvent
\nby  the\t Insolvency Court but who has not obtained an  order
\nfor  discharge are both covered by Article 191(1)(c) of\t the
\nConstitution.\tAs  this  question goes to the root  of\t the
\nmatter, we shall examine this aspect first.  Before us it is
\nurged  on behalf of the appellant that the High Court  could
\nnot,  in  deciding an election petition under  the  R.P.Act,
\nexamine\t  the\tquestion  whether   the\t appellant   is\t  an
\nundischarged  insolvent or not.\t The learned counsel for the
\nrespondents  supported\tthe view taken by the High Court  by
\nrelying\t  upon\tthe  decision  in  Bhagwati   Prasad   Dixit
\nGhorewala vs.  Rajeev Gandhi,<\/a> 1985 All Weekly Cases 682.\n<\/p>\n
      In  State of Kerala, the Provincial Insolvency Act  is
\napplicable.   Under  Section  3 of the Insolvency  Act,\t the
\nDistrict  Court shall be the court having jurisdiction under
\nthe Act unless by a notification in the official gazette any
\ncourt  subordinate  to the district court is  invested\twith
\nsuch  jurisdiction and it shall have concurrent jurisdiction
\nwith the District court and a court of small causes shall be
\ndeemed\tto  be\tsubordinate to the district  court  for\t the
\npurposes of this Section.  Under Section 4 of the Insolvency
\nAct, the court shall have full power to decide all questions
\nwhether\t of  title or property or of any nature\t whatsoever,
\nand  whether involving matters of law or of fact, which\t may
\narise in any case of insolvency coming within the cognizance
\nof  the\t court, or which the court may deem it expedient  or
\nnecessary  to  decide  for  the purpose\t of  doing  complete
\njustice of making a complete distribution of property in any
\nsuch  case.   Under  Section  7 of  the\t Insolvency  Act,  a
\npetition for adjudication could be filed by a creditor or by
\na  debtor and the court may on such petition adjudge him  an
\ninsolvent.   Under  Section 27 of the Insolvency Act  it  is
\nprovided that if the court does not dismiss the petition, it
\nshall  make  an order of adjudication that the debtor is  an
\ninsolvent, and shall specify in such order the period within
\nwhich the debtor shall apply for his discharge and the court
\nhas  power  to, if sufficient cause is shown, to extend\t the
\nperiod\twithin\twhich  the  debtor   shall  apply  for\t his
\ndischarge,  in which case a notice of the order will have to
\nbe  published.\t Under\tSection 28 of  the  Insolvency\tAct,
\nvarious\t  consequences\tas  an\teffect\t of  an\t  order\t  of
\nadjudication   are  provided.\tUnder\tSection\t 41  of\t the
\nInsolvency  Act,  it is provided that a debtor may,  at\t any
\ntime  after  the  order of adjudication, within\t the  period
\nspecified  by the court, apply to the court for an order  of
\ndischarge,   and  the  court   may,  after  considering\t the
\nobjections  of\tany creditor and, where a receiver has\tbeen
\nappointed,  on\tthe  report of the receiver – [a]  grant  or
\nrefuse\tan absolute order of discharge;\t or [b] suspend\t the
\noperation  of the order for a specified time;  or [c]  grant
\nan order of discharge subject to any conditions with respect
\nto any earnings or income which may afterwards become due to
\nthe  insolvent,\t or  with  respect to  his  after-  acquired
\nproperty.   Effect  of an order of discharge is\t dealt\twith
\nunder  Section 44 of the Insolvency Act.  Except as provided
\nunder  sub-Section (1) of Section 44 of the Insolvency\tAct,
\nan  order of discharge shall release the insolvent from\t all
\ndebts  provable under the Insolvency Act.  For the  purposes
\nof  Section 73 of the Insolvency Act an order of  insolvency
\nhas  been  considered as a disqualification to hold  certain
\nelective  offices.  An order of discharge, however, restores
\nthe  original status of an insolvent.  So long as the debtor
\nremains\t undischarged  he suffers from several\tdisabilities
\nunder  the Insolvency Act.  The Insolvency Act is a complete
\ncode and determination of all questions regarding insolvency
\nincluding  a  question\tas  to whether (1) a  person  is  an
\ninsolvent  or not, or (2) an insolvent be discharged or\t not
\nand  subject to what conditions, can be decided by the court
\nconstituted  under  that  Act  alone.\t It  is\t only\twhen
\nexceptions  are carved out as is done in the case of Section
\n2(8)  of the Sale of Goods Act any other court or  authority
\ncan  decide  such  questions.  Under Article 329(b)  of\t the
\nConstitution no election to a legislature shall be called in
\nquestion  except  by an election petition presented to\tsuch
\nauthority  and in such manner as may be provided by or\tmade
\nby  the\t appropriate legislature.  Under Section 80A of\t the
\nR.P.Act,  the forum for adjudication of an election petition
\nis  the\t High  Court.\tThe   scope  of\t this  provision  is
\nconsidered  by this Court in Upadhyaya Hargovind  Devshanker
\nv.   Dhirendrasinh Virbhadrasinhji Solanki & Ors., AIR<\/a>\t1988
\nSC 915.\t In that decision, the question was whether an order
\nmade on interlocutory application in election petition could
\nbe  the subject of a Letters Patent Appeal.  It was observed
\nin  that decision that conferment of power under R.P.Act  to
\ntry  an election petition does not amount to enlargement  of
\nexisting  jurisdiction of the High Court.  The\tjurisdiction
\nexercisable  under  the\t R.P.Act is a  special\tjurisdiction
\nconferred  on the High Court by virtue of Article 329(b)  of
\nthe Constitution.  Therefore, even though the High Court may
\notherwise  exercise ordinary and extraordinary\tjurisdiction
\nit  would  be difficult to envisage a situation\t that  while
\ntrying\tan election petition in exercise of the jurisdiction
\nconferred by the R.P.Act it can adjudicate upon vires of the
\nR.P.Act\t or  any  rule\tor order  made\tthereunder  and\t the
\nelection  petition  has to be tried in accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  R.P.Act  and   thus  the  court  cannot
\nentertain  and\tpronounce  upon matters which  do  not\tfall
\nwithin\tthe  ambit of Section 100 of the R.P.Act.   Even  an
\nordinary  civil\t court will not have jurisdiction to  decide
\nquestions  arising under insolvency enactments;\t much less a
\nspecial\t Authority  like  the  High Court  when\t it  is\t not
\ninvested  with\tsuch power under the Insolvency\t Act.\tThis
\nCourt  in  Bhagwati  Prasad Dixit  Ghorewala  vs.   Rajeev
\nGandhi,<\/a>\t 1986  (2) SCR 823, reversed the view taken in\t1985
\nAll  Weekly  Cases  682\t on which  reliance  was  placed  by
\nrespondent  that the High Court can decide whether a  person
\nhas  acquired citizenship or lost citizenship.\tIn that case
\na  question arose as to whether in an election petition\t the
\nHigh  Court had jurisdiction to determine the citizenship of
\na   person.   The  High\t Court\t had  taken  the  view\tthat
\nnotwithstanding\t the statutory bar contained in Section 9(2)
\nof the Citizenship Act that wherever a question arises as to
\nwhether\t when and how a person has acquired the\t citizenship
\nof  another country it shall be determined by such authority
\nin  the manner prescribed by the rules of evidence as may be
\nprescribed  in that behalf;  that since by virtue of Article
\n329(b)\tof  the\t Constitution all questions  arising  in  an
\nelection  petition filed under the R.P.Act were\t exclusively
\ntriable\t in  an\t election petition, it had  jurisdiction  to
\ndecide\tthe question whether a candidate had ceased to be an
\nIndian\tcitizen.  This Court took the view that when such  a
\nquestion  arises  it would be a matter to be decided by\t the
\nauthority  constituted under the Citizenship Act and when no
\ndecision  is  given  by the competent  authority  under\t the
\nCitizenship  Act,  the\tquestion whether he ceased to  be  a
\ncitizen\t of  India could not be adjudicated in\tan  election
\npetition.  In the present case, as we have explained earlier
\nthe  scheme  of\t the provisions of the Insolvency  Act,\t the
\nexclusive jurisdiction to deal with any question relating to
\ninsolvency  could  be  adjudicated upon only  by  the  court
\nconstituted  under that Act.  In such a situation, it  would
\nnot  be\t possible  to hold that the High  Court\t had,  while
\ndealing\t with an election petition, jurisdiction to decide a
\nquestion as to whether a person is an undischarged insolvent
\nor  not.   Admittedly,\tin  this  case,\t there\tis  no\tsuch
\nadjudication.\tHence  the High Court could not declare\t the
\nappellant to be an undischarged insolvent.  The contention
\nput  forward before the High Court is that  disqualification
\ncontained  in Article 191(1)(c) could be attracted only in a
\ncase  where  a\tperson is adjudged as insolvent as  per\t the
\nInsolvency Act and in the absence of such adjudication it is
\nnot open to the High Court while trying an election petition
\nto  find that the returned candidate is an insolvent and  he
\ncould  be held to be disqualified.  The learned Judge in the
\nHigh  Court got over this initial hurdle of the jurisdiction
\nof  the\t High  Court to decide whether the appellant  is  an
\nundischarged  insolvent by giving that expression a  meaning
\nin  ordinary parlance.\tTo achieve this result, the  learned
\nJudge  adopted\tstrained and strange logic or  reasoning  to
\nwhich  we  have\t referred  to in the earlier  part  of\tthis
\njudgment.  We shall now consider each of those reasons.\t The
\nlearned Judge referred to the scheme of different clauses of
\nArticle\t 191(1)\t of  the Constitution and that\tsuch  scheme
\nwould  indicate that if a member has any pecuniary  interest
\nin  any governmental or quasi-governmental body such  member
\nmay  not be in a position to perform his duties\t impartially
\nwith  free mind inasmuch as he can be under pressure of\t the
\nfinancial  institution\twhich has extended finances to\thim.
\nTherefore,  he was of the view that the policy of law should
\nbe  borne  in  mind  in\t interpreting  the  meaning  of\t the
\nexpression    undischarged    insolvent.     Under    what
\ncircumstances and subject to what limitations a person could
\nbe declared to have incurred disqualification is a matter of
\npolicy\tof  law and the courts have cautioned themselves  by
\nstating\t that  right to vote, right to elect or\t contest  an
\nelection  is a creature of statute and circumscribed by\t the
\nlimitations  contained\ttherein.  Therefore, as long as\t the
\nConstitution  or the R.P.Act indicates in clear terms as  to
\nwhat  its  policy  is, it would not be open to\ta  court  to
\ninterpret  such\t a provision by trying to find out what\t the
\nintent\tcould  be by ignoring the actual  expressions  used.
\nTherefore,  the supposed scheme of the provisions would\t not
\nafford\tsufficient  guidance  to  take\tthe  view  that\t the
\nexpression  undischarged insolvent should be understood as
\nmeaning\t an insolvent who is a person who is in\t impecunious
\ncircumstances  as is unable to repay the debt.\tThe  learned
\nJudge  noticed that under Article 191(1)(b) while  providing
\nfor  disqualification on the ground of unsound mind it\tis
\nmade  clear that a person is of unsound mind if so  declared
\nby a competent court and such declaration is not required in
\nthe case of an insolvent.  The extended logic applied by the
\nlearned\t Judge\tin the case of interpreting  the  expression
\nundischarged  insolvent is that even when such declaration
\nhas  not  been\tformally  made\tby  a  court  of   competent
\njurisdiction  still  the  Election Court can decide  such  a
\nquestion.   Even  though Article 191(1) of the\tConstitution
\ndoes  not include declaration by an insolvency court, but by
\nreason\tof  expression\tused  that he  is  an  undischarged
\ninsolvent  it  clearly\tindicates   that  he  could  become
\ndischarged  only  in  terms  of\t  the  provisions  of  the
\ninsolvency  Acts  and not otherwise.  It is implicit in\t the
\nexpression  undischarged insolvent that a person does  not
\nbecome\tso unless he has been adjudged insolvent and is\t not
\ndischarged  by\tthe  court under the insolvency\t Acts.\t The
\nexpression   undischarged   insolvent\thas   acquired\t a
\nparticular  legal connotation and such expression cannot  be
\nused  otherwise than in terms of the insolvency\t enactments.
\nThe  learned  Judge,  in  this\t context,  referred  to\t the
\nstatement  made\t by  Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy  Ayyar  in\t the
\ncourse of the debates in the Constituent Assembly wherein he
\ntried  to  impress upon the Assembly that similar  words  as
\ncontained in Section 73 of the Insolvency Act should be used
\nand  disqualification  should  be removed and  cease  to  be
\neffective  if  adjudication is annulled or if  an  insolvent
\nobtains\t a discharge with certificate that it was caused  by
\nmisfortune  and not by mis-conduct.  Reliance upon this part
\nof  the\t debate\t by the learned Judge, in  our\topinion,  is
\nmisplaced.   The  reference made by Sir Alladi\tKrishnaswamy
\nAyyar is to reduce the rigour of the disqualification in the
\nevent  the  adjudication  is  annulled or  if  an  insolvent
\nobtains\t a discharge with the certificate that it was caused
\nby  misfortune\tand not by mis-conduct.\t Merely because\t the
\nsuggestion  made  by Sir Alladi KrishnasSwamy Ayyar  is\t not
\naccepted  by the Constituent Assembly it does not mean\tthat
\nthe expression used in Article 191(1)(c) as to undischarged
\ninsolvent  will\t be different from what is contained  under
\nthe insolvency enactments.  The reference to Section 73 made
\nby Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar is in the background stated
\nabove and, therefore, has no effect on the interpretation of
\nthe meaning of the expression undischarged insolvent.  The
\nlearned\t Judge noticed that if a person is not to be held an
\ninsolvent  as  in  ordinary  parlance  it  would  result  in
\nnon-application\t of  disqualification even if the  court  is
\nsatisfied  that the returned candidate is not in a  position
\nto  repay  debts  and  could be adjudged  to  be  insolvent.
\nArticle\t 191(1)(c) does not contemplate mere  impecuniousity
\nor incapacity of a person to repay ones debts but he should
\nnot only be adjudged insolvent but also remain undischarged.
\nSuch  a\t contingency could only arise under insolvency\tlaw.
\nArticle\t 191(1)(c)  refers to disqualifications of a  person
\nfrom  getting elected to State Legislature.  The  conditions
\nfor  disqualification cannot be enlarged by importing to  it
\nany  meaning other than permissible on strict interpretation
\nof  expressions used therein for what we are dealing with is
\na  case of disqualification.  Whenever any  disqualification
\nis  imposed naturally the right of a citizen is cut down and
\nin   that  event  a   narrow  interpretation  is   required.
\nTherefore,  the\t liberal view taken by the learned Judge  to
\nthe  contrary does not appear to be correct.  Under the Sale
\nof  Goods  Act,\t a  special  definition\t of  the  expression
\ninsolvent  had to be given to the effect that a person\tis
\nsaid  to  be insolvent who has ceased to pay his debts\tin
\nthe  ordinary course of business, or cannot pay his debts as
\nthey  become  due,  whether  he\t has  committed\t an  act  of
\ninsolvency  or\tnot,  and the definition is  declaratory  in
\ncharacter.   Question  of  insolvency  of   a  buyer  is  of
\nconsiderable importance in the context of the sellers lien.
\nIt  is\tin  special  context  a\t meaning  is  given  to\t the
\nexpression  insolvent  even though a person had\t not  been
\nadjudged  an insolvent in the Insolvency Act to be insolvent
\nfor  the  purposes  of the Act.\t That definition  cannot  be
\nimported  into\tthe R.P.Act.  The learned Judge goes  on  to
\nobserve that an insolvent is a person who is unable to repay
\nhis  debts and as long as he remains in that position he  is
\nan  undischarged  insolvent, that is, as long as he has\t not
\ndischarged  his\t debts\the is an  undischarged\tinsolvent.
\nRedundancy  and\t tautology  cannot  be\tattributed  to\t the
\nLegislature.   When the Legislature has used the  expression
\nundischarged  insolvent that expression must be given  its
\nfull  meaning.\tA person on being adjudged insolvent remains
\nso  unless discharged in terms of the provisions of  Section
\n41   of\t  the\tInsolvency   Act,   either   absolutely\t  or
\nconditionally,\tor in the absence of annulment as  contained
\nin  Section  35 of the Insolvency Act.\tIn ascertaining\t the
\nmeaning\t of  an expression used in a statute, certain  norms
\nare  adopted.\tIf  the legislature has used  an  expression
\nwhich  has acquired a technical meaning and such  expression
\nis  used ordinarily in the context of a particular branch of
\nlaw, it must be assumed that because of its constant use the
\nlegislature must be deemed to have used such expression in a
\nparticular  sense as is understood when used in the  similar
\ncontext.    If\t an  expression\t  has  acquired\t a   special
\nconnotation  in law, dictionary or general meaning ceases to
\nbe  helpful in interpreting such a word.  Such an expression
\nmust  be  given\t its  legal sense and  no  other.   In\tthis
\ncontext,  we  may  refer to the weighty observation  in\t the
\ndecision  of  this Court in the State of Madras vs.   Gannon
\nDunkerley & Co.\t (Madras) Ltd.,<\/a> 1959 SCR 379, that a term of
\nwell recognised import in the general law should be accepted
\nas  confining the meaning in interpreting the  Constitution.
\nIf  the\t expression undischarged insolvent has acquired\t a
\nspecial\t meaning  under\t the  law  of  insolvency,  we\tmust
\nunderstand  that  that is the meaning that is sought  to  be
\nattributed  to\tthe expression used in Article 191(1)(c)  of
\nthe  Constitution.  We are, therefore, of the view that\t the
\nHigh  Court was not justified in holding that the expression
\nundischarged  insolvent\t should be understood de hors  the
\nInsolvency Act in a general sense.\n<\/p>\n
      Civil Appeal No.\t8361 of 1997<\/p>\n
      In this appeal preferred by the unsuccessful candidate
\nwho  contested\tthe  election contention is that  there\t are
\nvarious\t corrupt  practices  alleged  against  the  returned
\ncandidate and they have been established by producing proper
\nevidence  which should have been accepted by the High  Court
\nand in rejecting the same, it is submitted, it has erred.\n<\/p>\n
      The  allegation  is  that\t  the  appellant  using\t his
\nposition and status secured 450 bottles of rum from Military
\nCanteen, Pangode, Thiruvananthapuram and supplied in certain
\nHarijan colonies of the constituency on 24, 25 and 26 April,
\n1996.  K.S.  Subramaniya Pillai saw K.\tKrishnankutty who is
\nan  employee  of military camp, taking a number of cases  of
\nrum  to an ambassador car bearing Reg.\tNo.  KL-01-F1098 and
\non enquiries K.\t Krishnankutty told K.S.  Subramaniya Pillai
\nthat  this  rum\t were  purchased by  workers  of  the  first
\nrespondent.  The Harijan colonies where rum was supplied are
\nVengode\t and  Manathottam  and rum was supplied\t through  R.
\nGopalakrishnan Nair, Vice President, Vellarada Panchayat and
\nV.   Sudhakaran,  Member  Vellarada Panchayat by  the  first
\nrespondent  for\t bribing  the voters to secure\tvotes.\t The
\nevidence  adduced  before  the court was only that  of\tK.S.
\nSubramaniya  Pillai  and  G.   Suresh.\t  So  far  as\tK.S.
\nSubramaniya  Pillai  is concerned, he does not seem to\thave
\npersonal  knowledge of the bottles being carried and he came
\nto  know from K.  Krishnankutty.  K.  Krishnankutty has\t not
\nbeen  examined in the case.  K.S.  Subramaniya Pillai  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
12)  stated that he did not see any bottles and came to know
\nthat  there were liquor bottles kept in the card board boxes
\nfrom  K.   Krishnankutty.  The bottles were squarely  closed
\nand  the distance from him where he stood to the place where
\nthe   loading  took  place  was\t 50  yards.   He  asked\t  K.
\nKrishnankutty  as  to what was happening and that it was  he
\nwho  told  him\tthat it was liquor for distribution  in\t the
\nNeyyattinkara constituency.  So far as G.  Suresh (P.W.\t 15)
\nis  concerned, his evidence is to the effect that liquor was
\ntaken  to  various areas for distribution.  He\tsaw  bottles
\nbeing  loaded in a car and he approached the panshopwala and
\nasked him and two or three persons present there as to where
\nthese  bottles\twere being taken to and they told  him\tthat
\nthey  were  being  taken to Neyyathinkara and  those  people
\nstanding there also told him that the liquor was being taken
\nfor  distribution  in Neyyattinkara constituency to  further
\nthe  prospects of the appellant.  He noted the number of the
\ncar.  In the absence of examination of K.  Krishnankutty the
\nevidence  adduced  is vague and not clear and definite\tmuch
\nless  reliable\tand, therefore, the High Court rightly\theld
\nthat  there  is no acceptable evidence which can  bring\t the
\ncase   against\tthe  appellant\t within\t the  expression  of
\nbribery\t under\tSection 123 of the R.P.\t Act.\tThe  other
\nacts  of undue influence or that the returned candidate\t has
\nmade  an appeal in the name of religion or that he has\tmade
\nany  statement\twith  a\t false\treference  to  the  personal
\ncharacter and conduct of the candidate were not established.
\nThe  trial Judge has given cogent reasons in this regard and
\nthe  learned  counsel for the appellant in this case is\t not
\nable  to dislodge this conclusion by any material placed  on
\nrecord.\t The contention that the returned candidate indulged
\nin  corrupt  practice by incurring expenditure in excess  of
\nthe  amount permitted in contravention of Section 77 of\t the
\nAct  was  also rejected by the learned Judge.  The  evidence
\nadduced\t before the court was only in the shape of something
\nconjectural  and imaginary through P.W.\t 16 who stated\tthat
\nsubstantial  expenditure  had been incurred by the  returned
\ncandidate.   It\t is  not  made clear as to  who\t might\thave
\nincurred  this expenditure and the evidence was not  adduced
\nto  show  that the contractors used for the erection of\t the
\nstage  or  platform were examined to indicate  the  payments
\nhaving\tbeen made by the returned candidate.  Therefore, the
\nview taken by the learned Judge in this regard appears to us
\nto  be correct.\t The issue relating to whether the  returned
\ncandidate  had\tobtained  or  procured\tassistance  for\t the
\nfurtherance of the prospects of his election from any person
\nin  service of the government and whether he had misused his
\nofficial  position  also to such effect, it is\tstated\tthat
\nthere  was no clear evidence in this regard.  The allegation
\nthat  he utilised the services of the Sub-Inspector  Vincent
\nand  the acts attributed to him were done at all, much\tless
\nat  the\t instance  of  the returned  candidate.\t  Again\t the
\nallegation  made  is  in respect of taking  assistance\tfrom
\nAntony,\t Block\tDevelopment  Officer   (B.D.O.),  that\t the
\nreturned  candidate used his official jeep for\tdistributing
\npropaganda  material.  Though this aspect was deposed to  by
\nP.W.   16, the learned Judge felt that he could not act upon
\nthe  evidence of P.W.  16 alone.  He noticed that there\t was
\nhardly\tany  evidence to show that the B.D.O.  acted at\t the
\ninstance  of  the returned candidate or he was requested  by
\nhim.   His evidence is that on that day Shri Karunakaran was
\nto address a meeting.  The B.D.O.  told the Congress workers
\nthat  such  thin  attendance would not do when\ta  prominent
\nleader\twho  was  a Minister in the Central  Government\t was
\ngoing  to address the meeting.\tOn hearing this the Congress
\nworkers\t got  into  the vehicle fitted with  mike  and\twent
\naround exhorting people to come to the meeting.\t The learned
\nJudge  held that the allegation made by the witness that the
\njeep  meant for government officer was used by the  Congress
\nworkers is not established as having been done at the behest
\nof  the\t returned  candidate.  Therefore, this view  of\t the
\nlearned\t Judge\thas got to be upheld.  He also noticed\tthat
\nthere  was  no\tclear or direct evidence to prove  that\t the
\nfirst  respondent  has\tmisused his official position  as  a
\nsitting\t member of the Legislative Assembly.  We agree.\t  In
\nthe  result,  we allow the appeals [C.A.Nos.   7395-7396\/97]
\nfiled  by  the\treturned candidate and set aside  the  order
\npassed\tby  the learned Judge declaring his election  to  be
\nvoid   on  the\tground\tthat   he  has\tincurred   necessary
\ndisqualification  as  provided under Article  191(1)(c)\t for
\nbeing chosen to the Assembly as Member thereof on account of
\nthe fact that he was an undischarged insolvent.\t So far as
\nthe  appeal  [C.A.No.\t8361\/97] filed by  the\tunsuccessful
\ncontesting candidate is concerned, the same has to be and is
\ndismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999 Bench: S.R.Babu, R.C.Lahoti PETITIONER: THAMPANOOR RAVI Vs. RESPONDENT: CHARUPARA RAVI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1999 BENCH: S.R.Babu, R.C.Lahoti JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA BABU, J. : Civil Appeal Nos. 7395-7396 of 1997 The appellant in these appeals was declared elected to the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196449","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-05T10:58:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T10:58:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":5859,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999\",\"name\":\"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T10:58:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-05T10:58:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T10:58:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999"},"wordCount":5859,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999","name":"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T10:58:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thampanoor-ravi-vs-charupara-ravi-ors-on-15-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thampanoor Ravi vs Charupara Ravi & Ors on 15 September, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196449","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196449"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196449\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}