Their Lordships Declare

3 Comments | Post Comment

Larger | Smaller

Express news service Tags : Supreme Court judges, assets Posted: Tuesday , Nov 03, 2009 at 0828 hrs

Related Articles
Most Read Articles

Reveal files on the appointment of judges: CIC to SC Why delay? Judge blames his ‘unworthy’ counsel Court rejects bail plea of four in JNU violence case HC directs joint forces to vacate schools in Lalgarh by Dec 30 BJP invoke Atal to deflect Liberhan issue

Stop blowing 26/11 out of proportion: Pak bloggers Megan Fox will not be killed off in 'Transformers 3''US doing everything to make sure Pak smashes LeT infra'Sreesanth puts India on the threshold of victory Plugging in for Hendrix Katie Price dumps Alex Reid on air 'Kurbaan' fails to impress audiences

Personal Loan

Discussion
Blogs

Here is a new exprie... - By arun lal Vips invitees - By NIRANJAN Rectification proces... - By N. Kurup Accountability vs. p... - By ashok Finally, a sensible ... - By biym Freelancer - By Arjoo Sober down - By Haridas

Sanskrit Festivals Ex-servicemen discriminated Ex-servicemen discriminated Disc Replacement Content

All Supreme Court judges barring one on Monday posted a list of their assets on the court’s website. A look at who owns what:

Justice S H Kapadia

• A flat in Mumbai’s Judges Society (Rs 22 lakh pro rata cost of construction)

• Shares worth Rs 22 lakh (companies not mentioned)

• Mutual Funds of Rs 1.80 lakh

• Fixed Deposits of Rs 3.85 lakh

• PPF of Rs 12.5 lakh

• Jewellery worth Rs 1 lakh

• No vehicle

Wife

• A flat in Mumbai

Ads by Google

• Shares worth Rs 19.5 lakh

• MFs worth 1.5 lakh

• FDs of Rs 2.60 lakh

• PPF of Rs 9.5 lakh

• Inherited jewellery worth Rs 9.5 lakh, bought another worth 5.50 lakh

• No vehicle

Justice Tarun Chatterjee

• A building in Kankurgachi, Kolkata

• 2/3 rd share in ancestral property used fully as dwelling house

• SBI Mutual Funds of Rs 10,000

• FDs worth Rs 10,000 with Bank of Baroda

• National Saving Scheme Certificate worth Rs 1.42 lakh

• Owns a Chevrolet Tavera and Honda Civic financed by Kotak Mahindra — loan of Rs 11 lakh taken for the same in 2008

• Jewellery includes two gold finger rings, pearl and gold button sets gifted by father-in-law, diamond set gifted by son’s father-in-law.

... contd.

Single Page Format

Next1 2 3 4

Comments

Post comment

View all Comments (3) |

Does this new organisational setup contradict the Indian Constitution ?By: CK Raju Thrissur | 03-Nov-2009 Reply | Forward The judiciary's interest in the welfare of markets needs no amplification. Little wonder, then, that the Indian judiciary would only seek to reinforce and apply market-centric or pro-capitalistic legislations like Special Economic Zones with full vigor, in case a conflict of opinion arose from the ordinary people !! India's sovereign judiciary is also now under the spell of liberal markets !! Or, on second thoughts, has the Indian judiciary lost its sovereignity to the markets !! If we get a similar declaration from all the members of Parliaments, State Assemblies, leaders of all national political organisations, editors of all national dailies and television channels, heads of academic institutions from Vice Chancellors onwards - we can redraw the organisation map of constituents of Indian constitution after 60 years of independence !! Is this at par with the constitutional obligations requiring us to become an egalitarian society - where everyone is supposed to be having equal voice?

Investigate disproportionate assetsBy: GVM | 03-Nov-2009 Reply | Forward Well, Can IE publish for example what might have been an average judge;s salary , calculate the interests on CDs and investments such as LIC/shares over the number of years of each of these judge's services ? Looking at all the plots, lands and flats owned by these guys looks suspicious, and far from the reach of underpaid government servants. Is there no means by which the govt can track the wives and son's properties ? Because in India, all you do is take bribes and transfer it in your wife;s name to another account. No one can prove anything in that case.

lordship only whe on the judicial bench By: V.Seshadri | 03-Nov-2009 Reply | Forward they are to be addressed as 'lordships' only when on the bench. not to be addressed as 'lords' for the country, a democracy, which recognizes no permanent lordships.

Close
Please Login

User ID	*
Password	*

	Forgot Password? click here