Email Address It stated that any tax on gambling at a federal level favours the growth of illegal or clandestine gambling, by increasing tax pressure on the regulated sector. In contrast, it said, clandestine gambling does not carry any tax burden, employs people in the black market and takes advantage of existing legal loopholes to commercialise gambling. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitter ALEA strongly opposes the tax hike, offering several reasons why increased tax levels would harm the industry. It went on to claim the tax increase would have a negative effect on local economies, as it reduces provinces’ gambling income, and therefore decreases the funds allocated to good causes in each. Regulation Tags: ALEA The Association of Argentina’s State Lotteries (ALEA) attacked government plans to increase taxes on online gambling from 2% to 5% of stakes. The city of Buenos Aires was the first region in Argentina to formalise its online gambling licensing requirements, having approved regulations for igaming in February this year. Most provinces, it noted, were either consider or moving towards regulating the channel in the wake of Covid-19. It argued that federal taxation also violates the constitutional powers of the provincial jurisdictions, and the autonomous city of Buenos Aires, as it takes control of gambling from the regions in favour of national government. While it claimed not to oppose the adoption of measures to prevent illegal gambling at federal level, it warned that raising the tax on legal online gaming would have little effect in combatting illegal activity. In October 2020, Codere became the first operator to take significant steps towards securing a licence, as its proposal was approved by the Lotería de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (LOTBA), the city’s lottery operator and de-facto regulatory body for online gambling. 3rd November 2020 | By Conor Mulheir ALEA criticises federal gambling tax increase in Argentina It pointed out that the official gambling sector in Argentina generates some 240,000 jobs, including in gambling venues, official retailers, regulatory bodies and service providers. These entities already play tax in line with their respective national, provincial and municipal laws, as a sector of the formal economy, ALEA said. The next phase in the licensing process will see it begin to execute the strategy set out in its proposal, including technology development and integrations to its igaming platform, to ensure its solutions are compliant with the city’s igaming regulations. The government’s minister for the economy, Martín Guzmán, recently announced the change as part of the measures set out in the 2021 national budget, designed to shore up the country’s finances in the wake of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. Regions: Argentina Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter Topics: Legal & compliance Regulation
MRS OIL Nigeria Plc (MRS.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Energy sector has released it’s 2020 interim results for the third quarter.For more information about MRS OIL Nigeria Plc (MRS.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the MRS OIL Nigeria Plc (MRS.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: MRS OIL Nigeria Plc (MRS.ng) 2020 interim results for the third quarter.Company Profile>MRS Oil Nigeria Plc markets and distributes a range of refined petroleum products and lubricants in Nigeria for the automotive, industrial and aviation sectors. Fuel products include petroleum motor spirit, automotive gas oil, dual purpose kerosene, aviation kerosene, low-pour fuel oil. The company also sells a range of high-quality lubricants for petrol and diesel engines as well as greases which are manufactured and distributed out of a state-of-the-art proprietary blending facility located at Apapa. The Aviation division sells aviation turbine kerosene. MRS Oil Nigeria Plc operates through 138 company-owned retail outlets and about 255 third-party-owned outlets. Formerly known as Chevron Oil Nigeria Plc, the company changed its name to MRS Oil Nigeria in 2009. MRS Oil Nigeria Plc is a subsidiary of MRS Africa Holdings Limited. The company’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. MRS Oil Nigeria Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
Umeme Limited (UMME.ke) listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange under the Energy sector has released it’s 2020 interim results for the half year.For more information about Umeme Limited (UMME.ke) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Umeme Limited (UMME.ke) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Umeme Limited (UMME.ke) 2020 interim results for the half year.Company ProfileUmeme Limited is a power utility company managing the distribution of electricity, electricity supply and after-sales service in Uganda and power sharing with Africa sub-regions. Its electricity distribution division manages the operation, maintenance, upgrading and expansion of the distribution network in Uganda. It consists of approximately 26 202 kilometres of medium- and low-voltage transmission lines which covers the major towns and cities of Uganda. The electricity supply and after-sales service divisions connect new customers to the distribution network, read meters, bill customers and collect revenue as well as deal with customer complaints, restoring power interruptions, managing customer care and educating customers on saving energy. Umeme Limited targets customers in the domestic, commercial, medium industrial, large industrial and street lighting sectors. Umeme Limited is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange
It was Sept. 28, 1972. Angela Davis and Fidel Castro were speaking at a mass meeting in Havana. Davis, recently freed from U.S. prisons by worldwide support, had brought up the case of Pvt. Billy Dean Smith.Smith, openly anti-war while stationed in Vietnam, stood accused of lobbing a fragmentation grenade on March 15, 1971, that killed two officers and wounded one at the U.S. Army base near Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. Smith, 24, a Black enlisted man from the Watts section of Los Angeles, was singled out by his racist “superiors” to die for the fragging.When Fidel spoke, he said, “A man became a criminal. A man who refused to destroy schools and hospitals and dikes, who devoted himself to refusing to kill Vietnamese people, who refused to kill women and children, to burn homes, to torture and commit all acts of this type. They are demanding his head and therefore there is now a new symbol: Billy Dean Smith.“Here is a new cause for the progressive movement and a new cause for international solidarity,” said Fidel, comparing Smith’s case with that of Lt. William Calley, who massacred hundreds of Vietnamese in My Lai. Fidel called for raising banners supporting Smith, just as the world’s people had done for Angela Davis. (tinyurl.com/zxqf6cq)Eleven years earlier, Fidel declared he was a Marxist-Leninist. His immediate support for Billy Dean Smith showed he meant it. Davis wrote in her autobiography that posters showed up all over Havana in the following days calling for freedom for Smith.As a Marxist-Leninist, Fidel understood the class struggle also existed within the U.S. Armed Forces. He understood that the consciousness of the U.S. troops changed day by day. Encouraging this growing resistance could aid the Vietnamese liberation struggle. And much more.At the time, Workers World Party and those of us who were organizing the American Servicemen’s Union also supported union member Billy Dean Smith. The ASU would back any rank-and-file troop who resisted the war — by whatever means were available.Smith won his court-martial. According to ASU chairperson Andy Stapp, Fidel presented Smith “with one of those old 1959 Marine Corps caps that were worn by guerrillas fighting the dictator Fulgencio Batista in the Sierra Maestra mountains.” (transcript of January 2013 speech)Catalinotto discusses the ASU in his forthcoming book, “Turn the Guns Around: Mutinies, Soldier Revolts and Revolutions.”FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Help by sharing this information Dawit Isaak News Organisation June 29, 2016 – Updated on June 30, 2016 Eritrea: RSF asks Sweden to investigate journalist’s detention Arrested along with other journalists in September 2001, Isaak has never been charged or tried and has never been allowed to see lawyers or his family. In an interview for Radio France Internationale, Eritrea’s foreign minister said Isaak was still alive. But he also said Isaak was a political prisoner and would therefore not be tried in court. The government would instead deal with him as it sees fit, he added, thereby perpetuating the long list of crimes against this journalist. Lawyers working on the Isaak case wrote to the Swedish prosecutor-general today to ask him to reconsider an earlier decision not to open a criminal investigation against Eritrea’s President Issayas Afeworki and other Eritrean leaders for torture, enforced disappearance and other crimes in connection with this case. After examining an earlier complaint filed on the same grounds in 2014, the Swedish prosecutor-general found in March 2015 that it was likely that crimes against humanity had been committed against Isaak and that the top echelons of the Eritrean government were responsible. He also said there was enough evidence to start an investigation in Sweden. However, after consulting with the Swedish foreign ministry, he unfortunately decided not to investigate on the reported grounds that this could harm the ministry’s negotiations with Eritrea about Isaak. Today, the situation has changed. On 21 June, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea recommended that the UN Security Council refer the situation in Eritrea to the International Criminal Court. The Commission also recommended “that States Members of the United Nations exercise their obligation to prosecute or extradite any individual suspected of international crimes present on their territory.” This means that Sweden must now assume its responsibility. The recommendation by the UN Commission is a strong argument for Swedish prosecutors and police to start an investigation. “It is paramount that this investigation be officially opened, RSF said. “Since the complaint was initially filed in 2014, two Eritrean officials who are among the suspects included in the original complaint, Presidential Special Adviser Yemane Gebreab and Cabinet Minister Sebhat Ephrem, have visited Sweden. They could have been questioned, which would have sent a strong message to the Eritrean authorities that impunity for their crimes against their population is not possible anymore. Eritrea has been last in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index for the past eight years. There is no independent press in the country and all journalists are forced to work for the information ministry, where they are restricted to relaying government propaganda. RSF_en In the light of recommendations by the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has again asked the Swedish judicial authorities to investigate journalist Dawit Isaak’s detention in Eritrea for the past 15 years as a case of crimes against humanity. He has Swedish and Eritrean dual nationality.
TAGS WhatsApp Pinterest NORFOLK, Va. & STOUGHTON, Mass.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 24, 2021– Over the last four months, Sentara Healthcare patients with complex, chronic conditions have benefitted from access to specialized pharmacy services to help lower costs, expand treatment options, enhance medication management, and improve their overall health. Sentara, a nationally recognized nonprofit network serving patients in six states and Washington D.C., and Shields Health Solutions, the nation’s leading specialty pharmacy integrator are now expanding comprehensive specialty pharmacy services to more patients in Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Proprium Pharmacy, Sentara Healthcare’s specialty pharmacy, treats patients with complex chronic illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis, and infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C. Treating such illnesses require a combination of complex drug therapies and extensive patient support services that may not be needed for more common medical conditions. Proprium has grown exponentially since launching in 2016 and has been a market leader for patient satisfaction, low patient copays, and expedient delivery times. The partnership between Sentara Healthcare and Shields has augmented Proprium’s services and supports continued expansion. Shields provides specialty pharmacy liaisons to offer enhanced support for patients in 10 Sentara clinics with plans to expand in the future. These liaisons work with teams of experts to assist patients with health insurance prior authorizations, financial assistance, and overcoming other barriers to care. The expanded patient support services combined with newly available drugs gives patients more treatment options at Sentara Healthcare. Building upon the successful foundation Proprium has established, Shields has helped newly enrolled patients achieve an average co-payment of less than $5, medication delivery of fewer than two days, and have improved medication adherence to more than 95%. “This rapidly changing healthcare environment requires tremendous transformation and innovation to ensure the long-term success of each respective health system and, most importantly, the very best for those we are privileged to serve,” said Tim Jennings, Sentara Chief Pharmacy Officer. “The combination of lower prices, additional treatment options, and the support of an integrated care team will help improve outcomes and the overall health of our patients.” As the largest provider of Medicaid services in the region, Sentara Healthcare can provide these services to many underserved patients who may benefit from the enhanced support. “Often the patients who benefit most from specialty pharmacy services are the most vulnerable, requiring and deserving additional support to help them reach the best possible outcomes,” said Lee Cooper, CEO of Shields Health Solutions. “We are honored to help the extremely talented team of administrators and care providers at Sentara to bring this new level of service to the patients and communities they serve.” The services initially launched in 10 clinics at Sentara with plans to expand to other specialty clinics across their system. About Sentara Sentara is one of the nation’s top integrated healthcare systems comprised of 12 hospitals spanning Virginia and North Carolina. With over 125 years of healthcare experience, Sentara employs over 3,800 medical staff and nearly 30,000 team members. Sentara’s not-for-profit health system includes nursing and assisted-living centers, outpatient campuses, imaging center, rehabilitation services, and a home health and hospice agency. Sentara serves 858,000 members through its Proprium Specialty Pharmacy, including Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, and Washington D.C., with its Optima Health Plan and Virginia Premier Health Plan insurance. To schedule an appointment at one of Sentara’s specialty clinics, please visit: https://www.Sentara.org/schedule-appointment/ For more information, please follow Sentara on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. About Shields Health Solutions Shields Health Solutions is a specialty pharmacy integrator and care provider, partnering with hospital leaders on every aspect of specialty pharmacy creation, growth and management. The company provides the fastest, lowest risk model for health systems to create a hospital-owned specialty pharmacy program. In doing so, Shields provides health systems with on-site pharmacy and care professionals, a purpose-built specialty pharmacy technology platform, and access to 80+ percent of all limited distribution drugs (LDDs) and most (health insurance) payors in the nation. Shields provides ownership of all specialty pharmacy assets in a health system’s name. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210224005620/en/ CONTACT: Ralph Desanges Shields Health Solutions 781-566-5066 [email protected] KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA VIRGINIA MASSACHUSETTS INDUSTRY KEYWORD: HOSPITALS HEALTH PHARMACEUTICAL PRACTICE MANAGEMENT MANAGED CARE SOURCE: Shields Health Solutions Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/24/2021 10:30 AM/DISC: 02/24/2021 10:31 AM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210224005620/en Twitter Facebook Facebook WhatsApp Local NewsBusiness By Digital AIM Web Support – April 6, 2021 Twitter Patients with Complex Chronic Illnesses Can Now Receive More Affordable Medications and New Pharmacy Services With No Added Costs Pinterest Previous articleHess Corporation Donates $2 Million to Houston’s Winter Storm Relief EffortsNext articleTrae Young, Clint Capela boost Hawks past Nuggets 123-115 Digital AIM Web Support
Top StoriesSupreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 22 to March 28 2021] Nupur Thapliyal28 March 2021 7:27 AMShare This – xJUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. ‘Structures Of Our Society Created By Males For Males’ : Supreme Court Holds Army’s Evaluation Criteria To Grant Permanent Commission For Women Officers ArbitraryCase Title : Lt Col Nitisha and othes v Union of India and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 181A division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah declared that the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginJUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. ‘Structures Of Our Society Created By Males For Males’ : Supreme Court Holds Army’s Evaluation Criteria To Grant Permanent Commission For Women Officers ArbitraryCase Title : Lt Col Nitisha and othes v Union of India and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 181A division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah declared that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Indian Army to consider the grant of permanent commission for women officers to be “arbitrary and irrational”. The Court directed the Army to reconsider the pleas of women Short Service Commission officers for grant of PC within two months in accordance with the fresh directions issued by the Court.The top court held that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Army to benchmark the women officers with the lowest credentials of their male counter-parts and to freeze their ACR evaluation at the 5th or 10th years of their services to be “arbitrary and irrational”, causing women officers “systemic discrimination”.”We must recognize here that the structures of our society have been created by males and for males. As a result, certain structures that may seem to be the “norm” and may appear to be harmless, are a reflection of the insidious patriarchal system.At the time of Independence, our Constitution sought to achieve a transformation in our society by envisaging equal opportunity in public employment and gender equality. Since then, we have continuously endeavored to achieve the guarantee of equality enshrined in our Constitution. A facially equal application of laws to unequal parties is a farce, when the law is structured to cater to a male standpoint….Superficial face of Equality does not stand true to the principles enshrined in the Constitution”, the Court observed in the 137-page judgment.Also Read: ‘Not Enough To Proudly Say Women Are Allowed To Serve Army When Their Service Conditions Tell A Different Story’ : Supreme Court In Permanent Commission CaseAlso Read: Permanent Commission For Women Army Officers- Indirect Discrimination Even Without Discriminatory Intent Must Be Prohibited: Supreme Court2. Supreme Court Allows Tata Sons Appeal Against NCLAT Order To Reinstate Cyrus Mistry As ChairmanTitle : Tata Sons Ltd v Cyrus Mistry and others Citation : LL 2021 SC 184In a big win for Tata Sons Ltd, the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA Bobde allowed its appeal against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, which had ordered to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.The Court held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not amount to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The bench also said that it was open for Tatas and Mistry to work out their separation terms.On December 18, 2019, The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Group. Allowing Mistry’s appeal, the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the judgment of Mumbai bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that had upheld the appointment of N Chandrasekharan as Chairman in his place. The said NCLAT order was stayed by the Apex Court in January 2020 whereas the judgment was reserved on 17th December 2020.3. “Call For Justice Not Hate Speech”: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Patricia MukhimCase Title: Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. Citation: LL 2021 SC 182The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara and S. Ravindra Bhat this week quashed the FIR registered against Shillong Times Editor Patricia Mukhim over a Facebook post on violence against non-tribal people in Meghalaya. The Court noted that the Facebook post was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, the Director General of Police and the Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals youngsters.The Court allowed the appeal filed by Mukhim challenging the Meghalaya High Court order which had dismissed her plea to quash the FIR.”India is a plural and multicultural society. The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various provisions which outline each citizen’s rights; they include the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted) throughout the length and breadth of India. At times, when in the legitimate exercise of such a right, individuals travel, settle down or carry on a vocation in a place where they find conditions conducive, there may be resentments, especially if such citizens prosper, leading to hostility or possibly violence. In such instances, if the victims voice their discontent, and speak out, especially if the state authorities turn a blind eye, or drag their feet, such voicing of discontent is really a cry for anguish, for justice denied – or delayed. This is exactly what appears to have happened in this case.” The Bench held.Also Read: Free Speech Of Citizens Cannot Be Stifled By Implicating Them In Criminal Cases: Supreme Court4. State Govt A ‘Party Interested’ Under Section 406 CrPC; Entitled To Seek Transfer Of Case From Another State : Supreme CourtCase Title : State of UP vs Jail Superintendent(Ropar) and others Citation : LL 2021 SC 185 The Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan allowed the appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government’s plea seeking transfer of BSP MLA Mukhtar Ansari from Ropar Jail in Punjab to Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur Jail.In allowing Uttar Pradesh Government’s appeal, the Supreme Court, while not delving into whether the petition was maintainable under Article 32,held that a State as “party interested” under Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Observing that in a criminal administrative system, the State was a prosecuting agency, working for and on behalf of the people of the State, it could be deemed to be a “party interested” as the terms were of a “wide import and, therefore, have to be interpreted by giving a wider meaning”. “The words such as ‘aggrieved party’, ‘party to the proceedings’ and ‘party interested’ are used in various Statutes. If the words used are to the effect ‘party to the proceedings’ or ‘party to a case’, it can be given a restricted meaning’. In such cases, the intention of the legislature is clear to give restricted meaning. But, at the same time, the words used as ‘party interested’, which are not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, have to be given a wider meaning” The Court observed.Also Read: Supreme Court Allows UP’s Plea To Transfer Mukhtar Ansari From Punjab Jail5. Arbitration Reference Not Maintainable If Filed After Admission Of Insolvency Resolution Petition U/s 7 IBC: Supreme CourtCase: Indus Biotech Private Limited vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund [Arb. Petition (Civil) 48/2019] Citation: LL 2021 SC 187Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA Bobde observed that in any proceeding which is pending before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, if such petition is admitted upon the Adjudicating Authority recording the satisfaction with regard to the default and the debt being due from the corporate debtor, any application seeking reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act made thereafter will not be maintainable.”In a situation where the petition under Section 7 of IB Code is yet to be admitted and, in such proceedings, if an application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 is filed, the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to first decide the application under Section 7 of the IB Code by recording a satisfaction with regard to there being default or not, even if the application under Section 8 of Act, 1996 is kept along for consideration. In such event, the natural consequence of the consideration made therein on Section 7 of IB Code application would befall on the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996.”, The bench observed.In this case, the appellant filed a petition under Section 7 of IB Code before the NCLT seeking appointment of Resolution Professional. In the said proceedings, the respondent, filed a Miscellaneous Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act seeking a direction to refer the parties to arbitration. NCLT allowed the said application and also dismissed the petition under Section 7 IBC observing that that there is no default. 6. Insolvency Process Maintainable Against Corporate Guarantor Even If Principal Borrower Is Not A ‘Corporate Person’ : Supreme CourtCase: Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank Of India [CA 2734 OF 2020]Citation: LL 2021 SC 186The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari held that the principal borrower need not be a “corporate person” for insolvency process to be initiated against a company which stood as its guarantor.”Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be initiated by a financial creditor against a corporate person in respect of guarantee to the loan amount secured by person not being a corporate person, in case of default in payment of such a debt”, the Court held.The bench observed that the principal borrower may or may not be a corporate person, but if a corporate person extends guarantee for the loan transaction concerning a principal borrower not being a corporate person, it would still be covered within the meaning of expression “corporate debtor” in Section 3(8) of the Code. “For, the obligation of the guarantor is coextensive and coterminous with that of the principal borrower to defray the debt, as predicated in Section 128 of the Contract Act.” The Court observed.IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES1. Maratha Quota Case : Supreme Court Constitution Bench Reserves Judgment After 10 Days Of HearingAfter a marathon hearing over a period of 10 days, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court this week reserved the judgement in a batch of pleas challenging the Maharashtra SEBC Act, 2018, which provides for reservation for Marathas in jobs and education. The 5-Judge Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat heard the matter which began on 15th March.The pleas before the Constitution Bench challenges the Bombay High Court judgment passed in June 2019, and submits that the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provides for 12% and 13% quota to the Maratha community in education and jobs respectively, violated the principles laid in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) as per which the Apex Court capped the reservation limit at 50%.On September 9, 2020, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the cases to a larger Bench to determine the issue whether State Government has the power to declare a class as Socially and Economically Backward after the Constitution (102nd) amendment.Also Read: ‘We Cannot Take This 16% Reservation Lightly’, Says Supreme Court On Maratha Quota[Hearing Day 8]Also Read: ‘All Reservations May Go And Only EWS May Remain; But That’s A Matter Of Policy’ : Supreme Court In Maratha Quota Case [Day 9]Also Read: Maharashtra Law Granting Maratha Quota Constitutional, Centre Tells Supreme Court [Day 7]2. Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Electoral Bonds, Says Sufficient Safeguards Already ThereThe Supreme Court this week refused to stay the release of the fresh set of electoral bonds from April 1 for the assembly polls in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Puducherry. The Court dismissed the application filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms seeking stay of the bonds.Since the bonds were allowed to be released in 2018, 2019 and 2020 without interruption, and sufficient safeguards are there, there is no justification to stay the electoral bonds at present, the Court said in its order.”…in the light of the fact that the Scheme was introduced on 2.1.2018; that the bonds are released at periodical intervals in January, April, July and October of every year; that they had been so released in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 without any impediment; and that certain safeguards have already been provided by this Court in its interim order dated 12.4.2019,we do not see any justification for the grant of stay at this stage.Hence both the applications for stay are dismissed”, the Court said. Also Read: Cull Out Information From Bond Purchaser & Political Party; Do ‘Match The Following’ :SC Says Electoral Bond Anonymity Can Be Pierced3. Supreme Court Dismisses Andhra CM’s Complaint Against Justice Ramana After Confidential In-House EnquiryIn a significant development, the Supreme Court this week dismissed the complaint made by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Jagan Mohan Reddy to the Chief Justice of India that Justice NV Ramana was trying to influence the state judiciary to destabilize the state government.The information regarding the dismissal of the complaint was given in a statement published in the Supreme Court website. As per the statement, the complaint was dismissed “on due consideration” after being dealt with under the in-house procedure.It was on October 6 last year that the Andhra Chief Minister sent the complaint to the Chief Justice of India. Few days later, the details of the complaint were made public in a press conference held by the Chief Minister’s Secretary Ajeya Chellam IAS. The Andhra CM’s complaint alleged that Justice N V Ramana was influencing the judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court in “politically sensitive” matters for passing adverse orders against the state government.4. Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Param Bir Singh’s Plea Seeking CBI Probe Against Anil Deshmukh, Asks Him To Approach Bombay High CourtSupreme Court bench comprising of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Subhash Reddy this week asked Former Mumbai Police chief Param Bir Singh to approach Bombay High Court with his plea seeking CBI investigation in the alleged corrupt malpractices of Anil Deshmukh, Home Minister of Government of Maharashtra.During the hearing, the Bench posed two questions to the petitioner. The Bench asked why a petition as been filed before Supreme Court under Article 32 rather than an Article 226 petition before the High Court. The Court further asked the petitioner as to why Mr Anil Deshmukh, the person against whom they have made serious allegations hasn’t even been impleaded as a party.5. Bhima Koregaon Case: Supreme Court Reserves Order On Gautam Navlakha’s Plea For Default BailThe Bench comprising of Justice UU Lalit and Justice KM Joseph reserved its order on a plea filed by senior journalist and activist Gautam Navlakha, against an order of the Bombay High Court denying him default bail in the Bhima Koregaon case. The Bench said that it will release the order after 7th April, as Justice Joseph is not available until then.During the hearing, the Bench observed that the first two days, the period of seeking transit remand for Navlakha, will “definitely be accounted” to calculate period of custody. However, the question remains as to whether the period of house arrest can be considered under Section 167 (2) of CrPC.Navlakha’s plea before the top Court comes after a division bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik refused to interfere in his criminal appeal filed against an order of the special court, which rejected his application for default bail in June, last year. He is in prison since his surrender on April, 14 2020. 6. Supreme Court Reserves Orders On Plea Against Deportation of Rohingya Refugees In JammuA bench comprising CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramaniam reserved for orders a plea seeking directions for release of the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in Jammu and to restrain the government from deporting them to Myanmar.The Court was hearing an interim application filed by a PIL petitioner Mohammad Salimullah seeking protection of Rohinya refugees who came to India following persecution in Myanmar.The Original Petitioner in the main Rohingya Case Mohammed Salimullah has approached the Supreme Court of India with the plea seeking directions for release of the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in Jammu and to refrain the government from implementing any orders on deporting them. The plea has also sought directions to UNHCR to intervene and assess the protection needs of the refugees and grant them refugee cards.The application has sought release of the detained Rohingya refugees immediately and direction to the Union Territory government and the Ministry of Home Affairs to expeditiously grant Refugee identification cards through the FRRO for the Rohingyas in the informal camps. They have urged the Court to direct the Union Government to refrain from implementing any orders on deporting the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in the sub jail in Jammu. 7. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea By Sushant Singh Rajput’s Sister To Quash FIR Against Her Based On Rhea Chakraborty’s ComplaintThe Supreme Court this week dismissed a petition filed Sushant Singh Rajput’s sister Priyanka Singh challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash FIR filed against her by Mumbai Police on actor Rhea Chakraborty’s complaint.”We are not inclined to entertain the petition”, a bench headed by CJI Bobde told Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who was appearing for Priyanka.The Bombay High Court had observed that there was a prima facie case found against Priyanka Singh, the sister of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput, in the FIR lodged against her at the instance of Rhea Chakraborty alleging criminal conspiracy and abetment to suicide of Sushant Singh.8. West Bengal Coal Mining Case: Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Anup MajeeThe Supreme Court granted ad interim protection from arrest to the prime accused in the West Bengal coal scam probe, Anup Majee, conditional on him joining in the investigation before the CBI and cooperating in the same.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna further clarified that this order is passed without expression of any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, only as a pro-tem measure in view of the forthcoming Holi recess.The Supreme Court this week commenced the hearing on the challenge to the order of the Calcutta High Court whereby it allowed the CBI to investigate a case pertaining to illegal mining and transportation of coal through Railways in West Bengal, without the State’s consent.The Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court had ruled that the probe beyond the Railway areas (in the State of West Bengal), shall be conducted by the CBI only subject to specific consent being granted by appropriate authorities of the State of West Bengal. In an appeal preferred by CBI, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed the Single Judge’s order and allowed CBI to investigate the case without any hindrance. The case pertains to illegal mining and transportation of coal through Railways in connivance with officers of the Eastern Coalfield Limited, Railways, C.I.S.F. and some other private persons including the writ petitioner (Anup Majee). 9. Supreme Court Grants Relief To Mamata Banerjee’s Election Agent SK Supian, Stays High Court Order Reviving Cases Against Him In Nandigram ViolenceSupreme Court this week granted interim relief to Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee’s election agent SK Supian in relation to matter of revived FIRs against him in Nandigram violence case. A division Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Krishna Murari has ordered an ad-inetrim stay on the High Court’s order dated 5 March 2021 issued in response to a PIL. The FIRs in which SK Supian was named in relation to the Nandigram violence were withdrawn by the West Bengal government in 2020.The special leave petition has been filed against an order dated 5th march 2021 issued in a PIL whereby orders were issued to re-instate the criminal cases against Supian. The Additional chief Judicial Magistrate Contai, through an order dated 10th feb 2020 had discharged the petitioner from case initiated against him. There Court observed that while there were other similar matters discharging accused persons from proceedings, the Court is not concerned with them at this stage.10. Breaking: Supreme Court Stays Recovery Of Rs. 27 Cr Penalty Imposed On NDTV, Prannoy Roy And Radhika Roy By SEBIThe bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah this week stayed the recovery of the penalty of Rs 27 crore imposed by the SEBI on December 24, 2020 on NDTV promoters, Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, as well as on their holding company for allegedly violating various securities norms by concealing information from shareholders regarding certain loan agreements.The bench also directed the appellants cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeals against the SEBI order by the SAT, which are listed for final disposal on April 6.In a relief to Prannoy & Radhika Roy, the Supreme Court had on February 15 exempted them from making deposit before the Securities Appellate Tribunal(SAT) for hearing their appeals against the penalty of over Rs 16.97 crores imposed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) in a different case related to insider trading. 11. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Subramanian Swamy’s Plea Challenging Provisions Of Places of Worship ActThe Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the Constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.A Bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde and Justice AS Bopanna issued notice and tagged the matter with Ashwini Upadhyay’s plea seeking similar relief.Swamy in his plea alleged that the Places of Worship Act is a barrier, depriving the Petitioner(s) the right to pray at a place where, due to foreign oppression and invasion a Hindu Temple of a certain significance according to faith and belief of Hindus was/is converted, inviting this Court to interpret in lieu of the well documented history and review in checking the constitutional validity of such Act. 12. Supreme Court Stays Cases In High Courts On OTT Content RegulationThe Supreme Court this week stayed proceedings of cases pertaining to regulation of content on online media streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hotstar etc pending before the High Courts.A three-judge Bench led by Justice Chandrachud issued the direction while hearing Central Government’s transfer petition seeking transfer of cases pending in different High Courts for regulation of OTT platforms.The Bench was hearing a batch of pleas filed for regulation of content on these online media streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hotstar etc by the government.The Court observed that it will not transfer it today as service is not complete. The Bench has decided to hear the matter in second week after Holi, and asked SG Mehta to ensure that service be completed in meantime by taking all requisite steps.Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
ABC News(NEW YORK) — Fotis Dulos, the Connecticut man accused of killing his estranged wife, was released on bond shortly before 1 p.m. Thursday. He didn’t speak to reporters, instead walking directly to a car. Jennifer Dulos, who shared five children with Fotis Dulos, went missing May 24 amid the former couple’s contentious custody battle.Investigators allege 50-year-old Jennifer Dulos was killed inside her own home and garage in New Canaan.Her body was never found, but Fotis Dulos was charged Tuesday with capital murder, murder and kidnapping, police said.He appeared in court Wednesday, where his bond was set at $6 million.The judge has ordered the father of five to not speak to his children or the nanny. He returns to court on Feb. 28.Fotis Dulos’ girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, and his associate, attorney Kent Mahwinney, were also arrested Tuesday, charged with conspiracy to commit murder, authorities said.“We very much want to try this case. Mr. Dulos wants to clear his name,” his attorney, Norm Pattis, told reporters Wednesday. “There does not appear to be a crime scene weapon … there’s no body. What we have is a suspicious disappearance and an entirely circumstantial case.”Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Big week for stress sees six-figure settlementsOn 18 Jan 2000 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos. If anything is to make employers sit up and take their duty of careseriously, it is a rising compensation level. At £203,000 richer, Randy Ingram starts the millennium with the dubioushonour of having pushed compensation for stress at work to a new record high.After being shot at and assaulted in his role as a gypsy site warden inWorcestershire since 1993, he is still on medication. “The council has a lot to answer for,” he said. “They havemade me very ill with stress and depression and my home life has suffered as aresult.”In a busy week for the world of stress, Ingram has just eclipsed RoderickMcLeod. Last week, he scooped £200,000 from Test Valley Borough Council forpsychiatric illness, which he claims was brought on by his bullying boss andhas led to five and a half years of chronic depression.Policy failureIn Ingram’s case inconsistent policies, unique to the culture of localauthorities, appear to be at the heart of the matter. As soon as the wardenwould decide to evict anti-social tenants, councillors would overrule him. Of 10 wardens employed by the council, seven had been off work with stress.Only one week before, a lower settlement of £14,500 had been reached foranother warden. The council now claims that its policy of encouraging wardens to liveoff-site and providing support has resolved the problem. lronically, shortlybefore the Ingram settlement, the gypsy site team had won a prestigious awardfor teamwork attached to a best value review.Test Valley, however, remains tight-lipped. A spokesman said it settled onlyon the advice of the insurers and would have fought McCleod’s claim if it hadthe choice.The names Ingram and McLeod will now take their places in the stress hall offame along with Walker, Ballantyne and Lancaster. Due to the suffering of such people, organisations have been forced to taketheir duty of care seriously because such hefty sums are involved. New levelsThe ubiquitous and fashionable term “stress” appears to be worthfar more than an arm or a leg. Patricia Leighton, head of the school of law atManchester Metropolitan University, said, “What catches the eye aboutthese cases is the level of compensation. Solicitors have a good idea of howmuch can be expected for the loss of a finger or the loss of a limb. For aserious physical injury such as blindness people are unlikely to get thislevel.”Of the high-profile cases, Lancaster is the exception as the only one tohave gone to court. All the others were out-of-court settlements. But they dohave a very obvious factor in common. What is it with local authorities? Rita Sammons, president of local government personnel directors’ body Socpo,believes the reason lies in the fundamental nature of public service.”Public sector workers are the ones who have to deal with people over verysensitive and difficult issues. The stress is simply higher in front-line jobs.While employers have made great strides with grievance procedures, counselling,support and helplines, we still have a lot to learn.”But while this is doubtless the case, it does not explain why employers suchas the NHS or the Benefits Agency have escaped having to make settlements. AndyWilson, employee relations adviser for The Employers’ Organisation for localgovernment, argues strongly against local authorities being “a softtouch”. He points out that many of the cases now emerging started severalyears ago, before many local authorities starting giving priority to stress. Heurges a sense of perspective.”In many ways, given the numbers employed and the huge internal changesthat local government is going through, the number of stress payments has beenremarkably small.”Slow take-upThe point about perspective is germane. After the Walker case, an avalancheof stress claims was widely predicted, but has largely failed to happen. Take Umist law lecturer Jill Earnshaw’s speech to the 1996 IPD conference.”The numbers of people going to see their solicitors with stress-relatedproblems is huge,” Earnshaw told the conference. “There have been acouple of settlements, but the deluge simply has not happened due largely tothe legal difficulties in successfully taking a case.” That still holdsgood. Claims collapse on the issue of “forseeability” – whetheremployers could have reasonably foreseen the consequences of the pressure theywere loading on employees – and the great difficulty applicants have in provingthat the stress was caused by work and not by life in general.The main lesson from these two individual cases is the same as usual.”Employers ignore staff complaints about stress at their peril,” saidAngela Hetherington, clinical director of PPC Healthcare, a provider ofemployee assistance programmes. “Employers have a clear statutory andlegal responsibility for the stress the job incurs and must demonstrate a clearduty of care. Organisations need to demonstrate they have taken action toprovide support for employees.”Prominent cases of workplace stressJohn Walker The Northumberland senior social worker made history bywinning the first stress settlement of £175,000 in April 1996.Janet BallantyneSecond in command of an old people’s home run byStrathclyde Regional Council, Ballantyne won £66,000 in June 1996.Beverley Lancaster Employed by Birmingham City Council, Lancasterswitched to a housing officer role without training. She won £67,000 in July1999 and received the first acknowledgement by an employer that it was liablefor stress.By Stephen Overell Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed.