<p>Justice Dinakaran is under a cloud of allegations from the advocates’ fraternity for amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. Last week, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan had formed a six-member committee of Supreme Court judges to probe the allegations levelled against Justice Dinakaran.<br /><br />The controversial and vexed issue now appears to have led to a vertical split among high court lawyers, some of whom have questioned the inappropriate manner in which an advocates’ body had sought that Justice Dinakaran first clear his name before presiding over cases. <br /><br />Returning after the Dasara vacation, the Chief Justice, who arrived at the High Court around 10.30 am heard 27 cases in less than half an hour, before hearing concluded at 10.54 am. A bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Mohan Shantanagowdar, heard the cases of which six were default cases and two withdrawals. <br /><br />Advocate General Ashok Harnahalli, who met Justice Dinakaran here on Saturday, had urged him to attend court. This followed speculation that Justice Dinakaran was not willing to attend the court on Monday, when it reopened after the vacation, in view of the advocates’ association resolution asking him to first clear his name.<br /><br />Seeking time<br /><br />During the hearing of an Interlocutory Application (IA) related to the doctors’ strike, the Advocate General sought time to consider the demands of the agitating medicos. <br />He said that with the flood situation having turned severe, the State Government was focussed on it. <br /><br />At the same time, he said that normalcy had returned to the hospitals, affected by the doctors’ strike which was withdrawn last week.<br /><br />However, counsel for the doctors’ associations Ravi Varma Kumar submitted that the organisations had already donated a sum of Rs 35 lakh for flood relief and eight teams had been formed to attend to those affected by the deluge in North Karnataka. In a brief remark, the Chief Justice said: “We gave (support) to Gujarat. Now our own State is in peril. Judicial officers and advocates too must contribute to the relief work.” <br /><br />The Advocate General, Additional Advocate General K M Nataraj, several litigants, advocates and journalists had packed the court hall during the hearing, eager to watch Justice Dinakaran preside over proceedings.<br /><br />K N Subba Reddy, President, Federation of Bar Associations of Karnataka (FBAK) had a tough time in the court corridors as advocates sought an explanation from him for differing over the Association’s September 17 resolution. At that time, he had criticised the resolution, stating the lawyers’ stand as inappropriate.<br /><br />Some advocates demanded that Advocates’ Association Bangalore president K N Puttegowda convene an immediate meeting to discuss the issue over Justice Dinakaran. <br />The executive committee meeting convened by the AAB at the Civil Court complex discussed the need to collect funds for the flood victims. But another meeting has been slated for October 7 to decide on the next course of action on the AAB’s decision to adopt a resolution on October 17. <br /><br />Puttegowda condemned Subba Reddy’s statement that the AAB’s first resolution was inappropriate and would amount to interference with the functioning of a judge. <br />The FBAK, he said, was different from the AAB and the association still adhered to its resolution. He alleged that the FBAK was formed for the interest of the individual. </p>.<p>Lawyer files RTI on CJ’s assets<br /><br />Vijaykumar, a Bangalore-based advocate on Monday sought details of the assets and liabilities of Justice PD Dinakaran and his family members under the Right to Information Act, reports DHNS from Bangalore. In his application to the Karnataka High Court’s Public Information Officer, the lawyer has sought details of assets from 2005 till date. </p>
<p>Justice Dinakaran is under a cloud of allegations from the advocates’ fraternity for amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. Last week, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan had formed a six-member committee of Supreme Court judges to probe the allegations levelled against Justice Dinakaran.<br /><br />The controversial and vexed issue now appears to have led to a vertical split among high court lawyers, some of whom have questioned the inappropriate manner in which an advocates’ body had sought that Justice Dinakaran first clear his name before presiding over cases. <br /><br />Returning after the Dasara vacation, the Chief Justice, who arrived at the High Court around 10.30 am heard 27 cases in less than half an hour, before hearing concluded at 10.54 am. A bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Mohan Shantanagowdar, heard the cases of which six were default cases and two withdrawals. <br /><br />Advocate General Ashok Harnahalli, who met Justice Dinakaran here on Saturday, had urged him to attend court. This followed speculation that Justice Dinakaran was not willing to attend the court on Monday, when it reopened after the vacation, in view of the advocates’ association resolution asking him to first clear his name.<br /><br />Seeking time<br /><br />During the hearing of an Interlocutory Application (IA) related to the doctors’ strike, the Advocate General sought time to consider the demands of the agitating medicos. <br />He said that with the flood situation having turned severe, the State Government was focussed on it. <br /><br />At the same time, he said that normalcy had returned to the hospitals, affected by the doctors’ strike which was withdrawn last week.<br /><br />However, counsel for the doctors’ associations Ravi Varma Kumar submitted that the organisations had already donated a sum of Rs 35 lakh for flood relief and eight teams had been formed to attend to those affected by the deluge in North Karnataka. In a brief remark, the Chief Justice said: “We gave (support) to Gujarat. Now our own State is in peril. Judicial officers and advocates too must contribute to the relief work.” <br /><br />The Advocate General, Additional Advocate General K M Nataraj, several litigants, advocates and journalists had packed the court hall during the hearing, eager to watch Justice Dinakaran preside over proceedings.<br /><br />K N Subba Reddy, President, Federation of Bar Associations of Karnataka (FBAK) had a tough time in the court corridors as advocates sought an explanation from him for differing over the Association’s September 17 resolution. At that time, he had criticised the resolution, stating the lawyers’ stand as inappropriate.<br /><br />Some advocates demanded that Advocates’ Association Bangalore president K N Puttegowda convene an immediate meeting to discuss the issue over Justice Dinakaran. <br />The executive committee meeting convened by the AAB at the Civil Court complex discussed the need to collect funds for the flood victims. But another meeting has been slated for October 7 to decide on the next course of action on the AAB’s decision to adopt a resolution on October 17. <br /><br />Puttegowda condemned Subba Reddy’s statement that the AAB’s first resolution was inappropriate and would amount to interference with the functioning of a judge. <br />The FBAK, he said, was different from the AAB and the association still adhered to its resolution. He alleged that the FBAK was formed for the interest of the individual. </p>.<p>Lawyer files RTI on CJ’s assets<br /><br />Vijaykumar, a Bangalore-based advocate on Monday sought details of the assets and liabilities of Justice PD Dinakaran and his family members under the Right to Information Act, reports DHNS from Bangalore. In his application to the Karnataka High Court’s Public Information Officer, the lawyer has sought details of assets from 2005 till date. </p>
