Bar&Bench News Network
November 9 will go down in history as the day when the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, P.D. Dinakaran was verbally abused and later jostled by members of the Bar. And also as the day when the very same members of the Bar locked up Justices Gopala Gowda and B.V. Nagarathna in the Court Hall.
Today, a battalion of police personnel were posted outside the court halls and in and around the court premises to pre-empt any violence that may have broken out. The Karnataka High Court has now issued show cause notices to office bearers of the Advocates Association of Bangalore, who had called for the boycott.
Office bearers had written to Justices Ravi Malimath and Sreedhar Rao urging them not to hear matters on November 9 as advocates would not attend courts on that day. They further requested that the judges not dismiss the matters if advocates did not attend their court.
President, K.N. Puttegowda, Secretary, Rajanna and Treasurer, G.T. Ravi received notices asking them to show as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Puttegowda told Bar & Bench that, "In the interest of the litigants, we had written to all judges in the state not to dismiss matters if lawyers did not attend them." Defending their decision to agitate, he said, "If the judges feel that our protesting corruption and political vendetta which has crept into the system deserves to be slapped with a contempt petition, so be it. We are ready to go to jail for that cause." Whether the Karnataka High Court accepts this argument is to be seen. He reiterated that they wanted the Supreme Court collegium to take a prompt decision on Justice Dinakaran's elevation."
Now the Bar Council of Karnataka is demanding that the Chief Justice steps down from his post before Monday. At a meeting convened yesterday, Advocate General Ashok Haranahalli (pictured) and Senior Counsels B.V. Acharya and R.N. Narasimha Murthy, members of the Bar Council of Karnataka demanded that the contempt notices be withdrawn. "The Bar has to maintain cordial relationship with Bench. But the Bench has the responsibility to respect the same. The Bench has to withdraw the contempt notices against them [AAB] and the Chief Justice should desist from judicial work," they said. They also condemned the statements made by Justice Gopala Gowda against members of the Bar during the boycott.
They denied that lawyers were responsible for locking in Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Nagrathna. "Court officials locked the door, and the matter has to be investigated by the Lok Ayuktha," they clarified. Chairman of the Bar Council of Karnataka, Abdul Reyaz Khan was not available for comment.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- Chief Justice rebukes Justice Shylendra Kumar
- SC allows contempt plea by Salve; Prashant Bhushan faces contempt; calls for impeachment of Justice Dinakaran
- Justice Syed Rafat Alam appointed as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh HC
- No SC for Dinakaran; Allahabad Chief Justice's elevation may be on hold
- Justice Mohit S. Shah to be elevated as Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court
- Justice Sen files reply to the Council of States
- “Who is the Chief Justice?”: SC restrains Justice Shylendra Kumar’s order
Other News
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
- SC to hear petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge; Petition alleges deliberate concealment of pending criminal investigation at the time of enrollment
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










