Bar&Bench News Network
Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court yesterday filed his reply to the inquiry panel of the Council of States. 58 members had moved a motion to impeach the judge on the basis of a recommendation by the Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnanan. The Council of States had convened an inquiry panel comprising Justice B.Sudarshan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Mukul Mudgal and Senior Counsel Fali Nariman. The panel had issued a charge sheet to Justice Sen on April 19, 2010 and had given him time until May 5, 2010 to reply.
In 1993, when Justice Sen was an advocate in the Calcutta High Court and appointed as a receiver in a dispute between Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and the Shipping Corporation of India, he had been directed to deposit Rs. 24 lakh ($53,000) collected from the sale of some goods. He was then appointed as judge of the Calcutta High Court in 2003. SAIL filed a petition to recover the money, which was found to be lying in Justice Sen’s personal bank account. Justice Sen was found to have diverted the funds and in 2008 was ordered to pay the amount back with interest which was around Rs. 52 lakh ($116,000). While passing the order in the petition filed by SAIL, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta observed that Justice Sen “Had betrayed the trust and confidence reported in him by this court."
An anonymous source told newswire PTI that Justice Sen had denied all charges in his reply. The inquiry panel would take his reply into account and report its findings to Vice President Hamid Ansari.
An in-house committee was appointed by the Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan. The committee had asked Sen to either step down or take voluntary retirement. After he failed to comply with directions of the committee, the Chief Justice recommended Sen’s impeachment to the Prime Minister of India.
|
- 1. "Nowadays People lost the confident of judiciary. There was primafacy of alligation against Justice Soumitra Sen. So come forward to either step down or take voluntary retirement. ". Sankarkumar. Journalist., Chennai
- 2. "We need to change the laws of the country to expel Judges expeditiously. I think most judges know that the impeachment moton takes too much time and therefore can get away with corrupt deeds like this. ". Change In Laws, Bangalore
Related Stories
- Contempt notices issued to AAB officials; Bar Council demands Chief Justice step down
- The True Face: A Reply to Justice P. N. Bhagwati
- Justice Markandey Katju to be new Chairman of Press Council of India
- David Becker and Iain Higgins for ICC and Justice Anand and Goolam Vahanvati for the BCCI
- Bihar Bar Council not a "public authority?"
- "Judges have nothing to fear, nothing to hide" says Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar
- Chief Justice rebukes Justice Shylendra Kumar
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
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)










