Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9587,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Judicial Accountability&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9587,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 9478
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Judicial Accountability&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.<br /><br />The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.<br /><br />In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &mdash; the account was in his name &mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. <br /><br />Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.<br /><br />In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&rdquo;.<br /><br />Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. <br /><br />Reports of Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.<br /><br />The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.<br /><br />The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&rdquo;. <br /><br />The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.<br /><br />The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.<br /><br />It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. <br /><br />Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.<br /><br />On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9587,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Judicial Accountability&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9587,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 9478
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Judicial Accountability&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.<br /><br />The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.<br /><br />In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &mdash; the account was in his name &mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. <br /><br />Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.<br /><br />In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&rdquo;.<br /><br />Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. <br /><br />Reports of Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.<br /><br />The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.<br /><br />The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&rdquo;. <br /><br />The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.<br /><br />The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.<br /><br />It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. <br /><br />Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.<br /><br />On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680edb36b3366-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680edb36b3366-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9587,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Judicial Accountability&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 9478,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 9587,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 9478
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Judicial Accountability&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &amp;mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &amp;mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &amp;mdash; the account was in his name &amp;mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&amp;rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &amp;ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&amp;rdquo;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&amp;rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Reports of Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&amp;rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &amp;ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&amp;rdquo;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&amp;rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &amp;mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &amp;mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&amp;rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.<br /><br />The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.<br /><br />In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &mdash; the account was in his name &mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. <br /><br />Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.<br /><br />In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&rdquo;.<br /><br />Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. <br /><br />Reports of Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.<br /><br />The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.<br /><br />The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&rdquo;. <br /><br />The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.<br /><br />The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.<br /><br />It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. <br /><br />Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.<br /><br />On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 9478,
		'title' => 'Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.<br />
<br />
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.<br />
<br />
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &mdash; the account was in his name &mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. <br />
<br />
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.<br />
<br />
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&rdquo;.<br />
<br />
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. <br />
<br />
Reports of Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.<br />
<br />
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.<br />
<br />
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&rdquo;. <br />
<br />
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.<br />
<br />
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.<br />
<br />
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. <br />
<br />
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.<br />
<br />
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 9587,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 9478,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Judicial Accountability',
	'metaDesc' => '

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...',
	'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify">On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.<br /><br />The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.<br /><br />In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &mdash; the account was in his name &mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. <br /><br />Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.<br /><br />In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&rdquo;.<br /><br />Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. <br /><br />Reports of Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.<br /><br />The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.<br /><br />The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&rdquo;. <br /><br />The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.<br /><br />The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.<br /><br />It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. <br /><br />Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.<br /><br />On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 9478,
	'title' => 'Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.<br />
<br />
The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.<br />
<br />
In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &mdash; the account was in his name &mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. <br />
<br />
Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.<br />
<br />
In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&rdquo;.<br />
<br />
Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. <br />
<br />
Reports of Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.<br />
<br />
The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.<br />
<br />
The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&rdquo;. <br />
<br />
The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.<br />
<br />
The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.<br />
<br />
It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. <br />
<br />
Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.<br />
<br />
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 18 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge/833398/',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'advocates-history-catches-up-with-judge-by-kanchan-chakraborty-9587',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 9587,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 9478
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty'
$metaKeywords = 'Judicial Accountability'
$metaDesc = '

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify">On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday.<br /><br />The amount of Rs 33,22,800 &mdash; Rs 57,57,204 with interest &mdash; was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver.<br /><br />In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained &mdash; the account was in his name &mdash; even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. <br /><br />Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen&rsquo;s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court.<br /><br />In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the &ldquo;receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court&rdquo;.<br /><br />Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen&rsquo;s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. <br /><br />Reports of Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story.<br /><br />The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta&rsquo;s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order.<br /><br />The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that &ldquo;there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds&rdquo;. <br /><br />The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused.<br /><br />The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen.<br /><br />It was on the basis of Balakrishnan&rsquo;s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee &mdash; Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman &mdash; that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. <br /><br />Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen&rsquo;s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010.<br /><br />On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Advocate’s history catches up with judge by Kanchan Chakraborty

On April 10, 2006, Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta of the Calcutta High Court directed a colleague, Justice Soumitra Sen, to return an amount that he had collected in 1993 as a court receiver. Newspapers in Kolkata reported the order in November, setting off a chain of events that saw the matter reaching Rajya Sabha in 2009 and Justice Sen facing impeachment proceedings on Wednesday. The amount of Rs 33,22,800 — Rs 57,57,204 with interest — was the proceeds of the sale of some goods, subject of a civil suit between SAIL and Shipping Corporation of India Limited. In 1984, when Sen was an advocate in the High Court, he was appointed receiver. In 1993, the High Court directed Sen to collect and deposit the money in a bank account. And there it remained — the account was in his name — even 10 years later, when SAIL moved court to get it back. The same year, on December 3, 2003, Sen was elevated as a judge. Justice Sen was discharged from the receivership in September 2004 by an order passed by Justice Suvra Kamal Bhattacharya. The money, however, remained in his account, Sen’s ground being that no order had been passed by the High Court. In 2006, when Justice Sengupta directed Justice Sen to return the amount with interest, he observed that the “receiver being a practising advocate had betrayed the trust and confidence reposed in him by the court”. Sen deposited Rs 57,57,204 but filed a revision application before the same bench in December 2006, seeking deletion of the observations made against him. Justice Sengupta disposed of the application but gave Justice Sen the liberty to file a fresh application. The latter moved a division bench against the order. The division bench of Justices Pranab Kumar Chatterjee and Kalidas Mukherjee would later rule in Sen’s favour, but by then the Supreme Court had stepped in. Reports of Justice Sengupta’s April order had caught the attention of the then Chief Justice of India. From December 10, 2006, Justice Sen was denied a place on any bench. On July 1, 2007, CJI K G Balakrishnan sought a report from Calcutta Chief Justice S S Nijjar. On July 12, Sen met the CJI to present his side of the story. The division bench order came on September 25, with Justices Chatterjee and Mukherjee clearing Sen of the charges against him and directing that Justice Sengupta’s observations be deleted. Sen later apprised the CJI of this order. The CJI constituted a three-member committee comprising Justices A P Shah, A K Patnaik and R M Lodha in December 2007 to investigate. Justice Sen appeared before the committee in January 2008 in Kolkata. On February 1, 2008, the panel submitted its report, with the observation that “there has been misappropriation of money (at least temporary) of the sale proceeds”. The CJI sent the report to Justice Sen on February 6, 2008, and advised him to either resign or seek voluntary retirement before April 2. Sen refused. The CJI wrote to the Prime Minister in August 2008, citing the probe findings and seeking the initiation of proceedings to remove Sen. It was on the basis of Balakrishnan’s letter that 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a motion on February 20, 2009, to impeach Sen. The Rajya Sabha set up three-member committee — Justice B Sudershan Reddy of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and jurist Fali S Nariman — that served Sen a notice in March 2010, asking him to reply to the charges of misappropriation of money. Sen filed his reply on May 3, 2010, and appeared before the committee through a counsel in June. The committee, whose report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on November 10, 2010, held Justice Sen guilty of misappropriation and misrepresentation of facts. Sen’s reply to these findings went to the Rajya Sabha chairman on December 9, 2010. On August 9, the Rajya Sabha asked Justice Sen to appear in the House or represent himself through a counsel on August 17. He appeared personally.