CJ has bought land in Ooty, allege advocates

The property deal was executed in August 2009

CJ has bought land in Ooty, allege advocates


Chief Justice P D Dinakaran

Justice Dinakaran had contended that he had not purchased any land after he became a judge and that the property he had acquired was during his days as an advocate. But the sale deed executed in the name of his mother-in-law M G Paripoornamman says that the four acres and 45 cents of land at Udagamandalam village and town was purchased as recently as August 28, 2009.

Acharya, who has submitted details of the transactions to members of the Supreme Court Collegium, the Chief Justice of India and the Union Law Ministry, says that of the Rs 33,75,100 paid for the purchase of the Ooty property, three demand drafts (Nos. 125536, 125537 and 125538), each worth Rs nine lakh, were purchased by Justice Dinakaran’s wife and another DD worth Rs 6.25 lakh was purchased by his daughter.

Pointing out that all the drafts were drawn on Bank of Baroda, M G Road branch, Acharya says in a letter that some of the judgments delivered by Justice Dinakaran gave room for strong suspicion as they were delivered shortly before the registered sale deed was executed.

The property with a building bearing door no 281 and 281A on Old Pykara Road at Udagamandalam, purchased in the name of Justice Dinakaran's mother-in-law, was undervalued at Rs 33.75 lakh, although its market value at the time of purchase was Rs 8 crore, Acharya contended. He has compiled a list of seven judgments by the Chief Justice delivered between June 2009 and August 2009 when the sale deed was executed.
These have been sent to the Supreme Court Collegium and the CJI.

In his letter to the two authorities, Acharya states that contrary to the norms, the judgements benefited a person named Vinod Goel in three cases. The Chief Justice allowed Writ Petition No 8094/ 09, an appeal by Vinod Goel seeking permission to lift 1,17,800 metric tonnes of iron ore from a location, claiming to have stocked before 1985, a contention refuted by the Forest Department.

Liked the story?

  • 0

    Happy
  • 0

    Amused
  • 0

    Sad
  • 0

    Frustrated
  • 0

    Angry