Standard Chartered Bank Botswana Limited (STANCH.bw) 2015 Annual Report

first_imgStandard Chartered Bank Botswana Limited (STANCH.bw) listed on the Botswana Stock Exchange under the Banking sector has released it’s 2015 annual report.For more information about Standard Chartered Bank Botswana Limited (STANCH.bw) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Standard Chartered Bank Botswana Limited (STANCH.bw) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Standard Chartered Bank Botswana Limited (STANCH.bw)  2015 annual report.Company ProfileStandard Chartered Bank Botswana is a leading financial services company in Botswana; operating in the retail, corporate and institutional banking sector. The first branch was opened in 1897 which makes it the oldest financial institution in Botswana. Standard Chartered operates a network of 17 branches and agencies located in the major towns and cities of Botswana, and supported by a Loan Centre and Customer Call Centre. The retail banking division offers a range of transactional products and services, as well as solutions for wealth management and SME banking and lending. The Corporate and Institutional banking division caters for local businesses as well as multi-national corporations; with a product portfolio that includes cash management, trade services, syndications and lending, treasury services, foreign exchange, currency options, government bonds, high-yield deposits and liquidity management products. Standard Chartered Bank is highly respected for its adherence to corporate government standards and its commitment to uplift communities in Botswana through a dedicated community programme.last_img read more

Transcorp Hotels Plc (TRANHO.ng) HY2020 Interim Report

first_imgTranscorp Hotels Plc (TRANHO.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Tourism sector has released it’s 2020 interim results for the half year.For more information about Transcorp Hotels Plc (TRANHO.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Transcorp Hotels Plc (TRANHO.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Transcorp Hotels Plc (TRANHO.ng)  2020 interim results for the half year.Company ProfileTranscorp Hotels Plc is a hotel operations company in Nigeria and a subsidiary of Transnational Corporation of Nigeria Plc. The latter is a diversified conglomerate with business interests in the power generation, hospitality, agriculture and oil and gas sectors. Hotels in the Group include Transcorp Hilton Hotel, a 5-star hotel with 670 rooms located in Abuja; and Transcorp Hotel with 146 rooms located in Calabar. Formerly known as Transnational Hotels and Tourism Services Limited, the company changed its name to Transcorp Hotels Plc in 2014. Its head office is in Abuja, Nigeria. Transcorp Hotels Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchangelast_img read more

The Marston’s share price has jumped! Should I buy the stock?

first_imgThe Marston’s share price has jumped! Should I buy the stock? Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. The high-calibre small-cap stock flying under the City’s radar Rupert Hargreaves | Wednesday, 17th February, 2021 | More on: MARS Over the past 30 days, the Marston’s (LON: MARS) share price has jumped in value by more than 15%. This has helped the stock regain some of its losses over the past year. Since the middle of February 2020, the stock is down 13%. After this performance, shares in the pubs and restaurants operator are well on the way to recovering the majority of the losses suffered in 2021. As such, I’m wondering if it’s worth buying the shares today ahead of future gains. 5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…The outlook for the Marston’s share price Past performance should never be used as a guide to future potential. Just because shares in the hospitality/leisure operator have recovered some losses over the past few weeks, doesn’t mean the stock will continue to trend higher. Another wave of bad news could cause the Marston’s share price to plunge once again. Whenever I consider an investment for my portfolio, the first thing I do is try to understand why the stock has acted in the way it has over the previous 12 months.With Marston’s, it’s pretty straightforward. Since March last year, rolling lockdowns have decimated the company’s revenues. The firm’s 2020 financial year revenues fell to £821m from £1.2bn in the prior period. The group lost a staggering £400m in its latest financial year, including impairment charges. For some comparison, the organisation’s current market capitalisation is £588m. These losses raised some serious questions about the group’s financial position. Analysts began to speculate whether the business could remain solvent and outlast the pandemic. Two things have changed in the past few months that have altered this view. First of all, the group received a buyout offer from US private equity firm Platinum Equity Advisors. The potential acquirer offered a price of 88p, followed by 95p, and then a final bid of 105p. Management rejected all of these attempts. However, I think they showed other investors believe there’s value in the Marston’s share price. The other factor that implies the company’s outlook has improved over the past six months is the completion of a transformational agreement with Carlsberg. This provided an immediate cash infusion of £233m. As well as bank facilities of £176m, the group now has plenty of cash to meet estimated outgoings of £3m-£4m per week in a full lockdown. Recovery playAll the above suggests to me the outlook for the Marston’s share price has improved dramatically over the past six months. Unfortunately, the company isn’t out of the woods just yet. Its future depends on the government’s ability to control the pandemic, which is totally out of its control. That makes the business difficult for me to value. Therefore, while the leisure group could be an excellent way to play the economic recovery over the next few years, I’m not going to buy the stock today. I feel there’s just too much uncertainty surrounding its future and there may be other companies (with more substantial balance sheets) better placed to capitalise on reopening trade. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Click here to claim your copy of this special investment report — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top Small-Cap Stock… free of charge! Rupert Hargreaves owns no share mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Marstons. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.center_img Image source: Getty Images Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Enter Your Email Address Adventurous investors like you won’t want to miss out on what could be a truly astonishing opportunity…You see, over the past three years, this AIM-listed company has been quietly powering ahead… rewarding its shareholders with generous share price growth thanks to a carefully orchestrated ‘buy and build’ strategy.And with a first-class management team at the helm, a proven, well-executed business model, plus market-leading positions in high-margin, niche products… our analysts believe there’s still plenty more potential growth in the pipeline.Here’s your chance to discover exactly what has got our Motley Fool UK investment team all hot-under-the-collar about this tiny £350+ million enterprise… inside a specially prepared free investment report.But here’s the really exciting part… right now, we believe many UK investors have quite simply never heard of this company before! I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. See all posts by Rupert Hargreaveslast_img read more

Indiana Soybeans Pass 80 Percent Planted

first_img Fieldwork was variable this week as zero precipitation permitted some areas to be worked all week long, while downpours in other areas kept farmers out the fields for the majority of the week ending June 1, according to the USDA, NASS, Great Lakes Region. Temperatures ranged between 51 and 90 degrees this week, varying on average between 5 and 10 degrees above normal statewide. Precipitation across the state was sporadic, with totals ranging from 0 to 1.87 inches.Indiana corn planted reached 95% and total emergence is up to 83%. The northern part of the state led in corn emergence at 86%, followed by 84% in central and 76% in the south. Nationally planted corn acres total 95% as well, and emergence is right at the 5-year average of 80%.Indiana corn condition is rated 70% good to excellent and 76% of the national crop is in the good to excellent category. This is the first condition report of the season.The national soybean crop is 78% planted and 50% emerged. In Indiana the numbers are slightly better at 81% planted and 55% emerged. For Indiana soybeans planted, the north led at 87%, compared with 84% and 66% in central and south respectively.Winter wheat heading was nearest completion in the south at 92%, followed by central at 85% and north at 75%.Where weather permitted, farmers were finishing up corn and soybean planting, including replanting of any flood-damaged stands. Corn that had emerged yellow was greening nicely with warmer temperatures. Sidedressing corn and spraying for weeds was well under way. Winter wheat continues to fare well, with most of the crop headed. Warm weather and good breezes made ideal conditions for hay cutting. Other activities this week included scattered tilling and mowing of roadsides.Source: NASS Indiana Soybeans Pass 80 Percent Planted SHARE SHARE By Andy Eubank – Jun 3, 2014 Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter Previous articleIndiana Ag to be Showcased at Vintage Indiana SaturdayNext articleUSDA Acreage Report Could Shake Up the Soybean Market Andy Eubank Home Indiana Agriculture News Indiana Soybeans Pass 80 Percent Plantedlast_img read more

RSF unveils portraits of journalists arbitrarily detained in Saudi Arabia

first_img At least 33 TV presenters, editors, columnists and bloggers are currently in prison, the victims of an opaque and arbitrary judicial system, because of what they said in an article, a TV interview, a blog post or even a single tweet.According to certain local media outlets, the journalist Turki Al-Jasser probably died under torture shortly after Khashoggi’s murder. The Saudi authorities have never denied this. As for the presenter and preacher Ali Al-Omari, who is part of the Muslim scholars movement considered moderate, he faces the death penalty for terrorism-related charges.Some were arrested many years ago, under the late King Abdullah or when the current king, Salman, was crown prince and in control. They include the citizen-journalist Raif Badawi, who was sentenced in 2012 to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam.” Others are the victims of the crackdown launched in the autumn of 2017 by the current crown prince, his son Mohammad bin Salman (MBS).Since then the list of detainees has grown longer in the course of several waves of arrests. In March 2018, three women who defended women’s rights – columnists and bloggers – were arrested and accused of endangering the state’s security and being in contact with foreign entities. In the fall of 2019, two additional women journalists were thrown behind bars in yet another wave of arrests and their fate is uncertain: Maha Al-Rafidi and Zana Al-Shahri.The detainees included two foreign journalists, the Yemeni Marwan Al-Muraisy and the Jordanian Abdelrahman Farhaneh, who were the victims of enforced disappearances. Their families are still waiting for them to be released.JAILED BEFORE 2017Fadhel Al-Manasef, citizen-journalist and human rights defender Saudi media silent on RSF complaint against MBS Saudi ArabiaMiddle East – North Africa Condemning abusesReports and statisticsOnline freedoms ImprisonedFreedom of expression Organisation Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reminds the world that at least 33 journalists are currently detained in Saudi Arabia for the same reason that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul – for criticizing their country’s rulers. RSF unveils their portraits below. NSO Group hasn’t kept its promises on human rights, RSF and other NGOs say Receive email alerts June 8, 2021 Find out more to go further Charges: “Working against national security and stability,” “disloyalty towards the king,” and “publishing articles and communicating with foreign journalists with the aim of harming the state’s image”.Jailed since: 1 May 2011.Judicial situation: Sentenced on 17 April 2014 to 15 years in prison, a fine of 100,000 riyals (19,300 euros) and a 15-year ban on leaving the country after release.Raif Badawi, blogger, founder of the Saudi Liberal Network (an online forum) October 25, 2018 – Updated on February 25, 2021 RSF unveils portraits of journalists arbitrarily detained in Saudi Arabia News Follow the news on Saudi Arabiacenter_img News News News RSF joins Middle East and North Africa coalition to combat digital surveillance April 28, 2021 Find out more Saudi ArabiaMiddle East – North Africa Condemning abusesReports and statisticsOnline freedoms ImprisonedFreedom of expression Charges: “Participating in anti-government protests,” “publishing photos of prisons in public places” and “being in contact with foreign journalists and sending photos to media outlets”.Jailed since: 9 May 2013.Judicial situation: Sentenced in July 2014 to seven years in prison and a seven-year ban on leaving the country after release.Wajdi Al-Ghazzawi, TV presenter and founder of the Al Fajr TV channelCharges: “Inciting division within members of society” and “defaming the state and its judicial institutions”. The court also banned al-Ghazzawi for life from appearing on media outlets and forbade him to leave the country for 20 years.Jailed since: 10 August 2012.Judicial situation: Sentenced in February 2014 to 12 years in prison and a 20-year ban on leaving the country after release.Waleed Abulkhair, founder of the Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi ArabiaCharges: “Inciting rebellion,” “publishing false information with the aim of harming the state,” “contempt of court” and “creating an NGO without permission”.Jailed since: 15 April 2014.Judicial situation: Sentenced to 15 years in jail and a 15-year ban on leaving the country after release.Alaa Brinji, journalist Charges: Insulting comments on social networks; convicted of violating article 6 of the cybercrime law, mocking religious figures and Saudi leaders, “inciting public opinion” and “accusing members of the security forces of killing demonstrators”.Jailed since: 12 May 2014. Judicial situation: Sentenced on appeal in 2016 to seven years in prison. Alaa Brinji was arrested in the eastern city of Dammam on 13 May 2014 and was initially sentenced in March 2016 to five years in prison and a fine of 50,000 riyals but, when he appealed, the jail term was increased to seven years.Turad Al-Amri, political analyst and commentatorCharges: Not known. No official charges.Jailed since: November 2016.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.JAILED IN 2017Nazeer Al-Majed, author and journalistCharges: “Disobeying the authorities,” “participating in demonstrations,” “writings critical of the government,” “endangering the country’s security” and contacts with foreign media. Jailed since: 18 January 2017. (Previously arrested in 2011) Judicial situation: Sentenced on 5 June 2017 to seven years in prison, a seven-year ban on leaving the country after release and a fine of more than 100.000 riyals.Ali Al-Omari, preacher, author, 4Shabab TV presenterCharges: “forming a youth organisation to carry out the objectives of a terrorist group”.Jailed since: 9 September 2017.Judicial situation: death penalty sought. Final verdict pending. Victim of tortures. Musa’id Al-Kathiri, Writer and columnistCharges: Unknown. No official charge. Jailed since: 11 September 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detentionWaleed Al-Huwairini, journalist and presenter on Al-MajdCharges: Unknown. No official charge.Jailed since: 12 September 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. In September 2017, he was not allowed to attend his father’s funeralsAdel Banaemah, preacher, author, 4Shabab TV presenter Charges: Not known. No official charge.Jailed since: 12 September 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. Victim of torturesFahd Al-Sunaidi, commentator and Al-Majd TV presenter Charges: “Agitating and provoking public opinion” because he demanded the release of detainees. He was accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood party.Jailed since: 11 September 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. His trial reportedly began in September 2018. He was sentenced in September to 3 and a half years in prison, which includes the time already served.Khaled Al-Alkami, writer and political analystCharges: Not know. No official charge.Jailed since: 15 september 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detentionMalek Al-Ahmad, editor of several media outlets and founder of Al Mohayed (The Neutral One)Charges: Not known. There are no formal charges.Jailed since:  19 September 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.Sami Al-Thubaiti, journalist with the website TwasulCharges: Not known. No official charge. His calls for reconciliation with Qatar may have counted against him.Jailed since: 13 September 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. He was supposed to have a closed trial in February 2020 but it was postponed because of covid-19Ahmad Al-Sowayan, president of the Islamic Press AssociationCharges: Unspecified speech charges.Jailed since: 20 September 2017.Judicial situation: Sentenced in September 2020 to 2 years in prison.Jamil Farsi, businessman and commentatorCharges: Not known. No official charge. Jailed since: 25 September 2017. Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. Mohammed Al-Bishr, journalist and commentatorCharges: Not known. No official charge.Jailed since: 5 October 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. A torture victim.JAILED IN 2018 Turki Al-Jasser, author and journalistCharges: Not known. No official charge. Jailed since: 15 March 2017.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. Marwan Al-Muraisy, Yemeni writer and commentator based in Saudi ArabiaCharges: Not known. No official charge. Jailed since: 1 June 2018.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.Nassima Al-Sadah, women’s rights activist and commentatorCharges: Not known. No official charge. Accused of being in contact with foreign entities. Because of her activism and writings, she was banned from leaving the country before being arrested. Jailed since: 30 July 2018. Judicial situation: Isolated since February 2019, when she was transferred to Al-Mabahith prison in Dammam. Sultan Al-Jumairi, journalist and columnistCharges: Not known. No official charge.Jailed since: 9 September 2018.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.JAILED IN 2019Zuhair Kutbi, writer and journalistCharges: Not known. No official charge. He was already arrested in June 2015 and sentenced to four years in prison on charges of “inciting rebellion” and “insulting the state or its symbols.” He was released in June 2017 in return for his silence.Jailed since: 10 January 2019.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. He was arrested 7 times due to his support for reformism. Abdelrahman Farhaneh, Jordanian journalist based in Saudi ArabiaCharges: Not known. No official charge. Jailed since: 22 February 2019. Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. He was supposed to be released a few months after his arrest due to his age and health but he was not. Bader Al-Ibrahim, doctor, writer and journalistCharges: Not known. No official charge. Jailed since: 4 April 2019. Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.Mohammed Al-Sadiq, writer and journalistCharges: Unknown. No official charge. Jailed since: 4 April 2019. He was previously detained for 12 days in May 2018 for expressing support for imprisoned activists.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.Thumar Al-Marzouqi, writer, blogger and journalistCharges: Unknown. No official charge. Jailed since: April 2019.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detentionAbdullah Al-Duhailan, writer and journalistCharges: Unknown. No official charge. Jailed since: 5 April 2019. Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.Yazid Al-Faifi, local journalistCharges: Unknown. No official charge.Jailed since: 4 April 2019. Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.Nayef Al-Hindas, academic, writer and journalistCharges: Not known. No official charge. Jailed since: 4 April 2019.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention.Maha Al-Rafidi, intern at Al-Watan Charges: Unknown. No official charges. Jailed since:  28 september 2019. Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. She was sent to solitary confinement for the first two months of her detention and then transferred to the prison.Zana Al-Shahri, Writer and journalistCharges: Unknown. No official charges.Jailed since: November 2019.Judicial situation: Preventive or administrative detention. Forced disappearance. Charges: “Insulting Islam” and “undermines public order, religious values, public decency or privacy.” Jailed since: 17 June 2012Judicial situation: Sentenced in May 2014 to 10 years in prison, 1,000 lashes, a ten-year ban on leaving the country after release and a fine of 1 million riyals  (226,000 euros). He already received 50 lashes.Jassim Al Safar, photographer RSF_en Help by sharing this information March 9, 2021 Find out morelast_img read more

Lessor/Lessee Disputes Whether Arbitrable

first_imgColumnsLessor/Lessee Disputes Whether Arbitrable Kapil Madan25 April 2020 7:04 AMShare This – xArbitration is a mechanism by which the parties to an agreement decides the mode and the manner by which the dispute between the parties may be adjudicated. Given the fact that our Judicial system is already overburdened, Arbitration as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism is undoubtedly a natural choice for the parties looking for expedited adjudication of their disputes. …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?LoginArbitration is a mechanism by which the parties to an agreement decides the mode and the manner by which the dispute between the parties may be adjudicated. Given the fact that our Judicial system is already overburdened, Arbitration as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism is undoubtedly a natural choice for the parties looking for expedited adjudication of their disputes. One of the crucial aspects that merits attention while including an arbitration clause in any agreement is the issue of Arbitrability. Arbitrability means whether the subject matter of the dispute is capable of being adjudicated in a private fora i.e. Arbitration. Although every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or non-contractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. LESSOR/LESSEE DISPUTE WHETHER ARBITRABLE In the aforesaid context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532 by way of the example enumerated several kind of disputes that are not capable of being adjudicated by private fora i.e. Arbitration. The said classification inter-alia included eviction or tenancy matter governed by the special statutes where the tenant enjoys a statutory protection and it is only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction. While giving the said classification, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the distinction between the right in rem and right in personam and observed as under: “37. It may be noticed that the cases referred to above relate to actions in rem. A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large, as contrasted from a right in personam which is an interest protected solely against specific individuals. Actions in personam refer to actions determining the rights and interests of the parties themselves in the subject-matter of the case, whereas actions in rem refer to actions determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves but also against all persons at any time claiming an interest in that property. Correspondingly, a judgment in personam refers to a judgment against a person as distinguished from a judgment against a thing, right or status and a judgment in rem refers to a judgment that determines the status or condition of property which operates directly on the property itself. (Vide Black’s Law Dictionary.)” Further, the issue of Arbitrability of the tenancy dispute directly came for consideration before the two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia 2017 10 SCC 706 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated and reaffirmed the view taken in Booz Allen’s (Supra) as correct and held that the tenancy disputes are not capable of being adjudicated by way of Arbitration. It is pertinent to note that the issue of Arbitrability of the tenancy dispute has taken an interesting turn as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation 2019 SCC ONLINE SC 358 has doubted the correctness of the earlier judgments and have referred the matter to a larger bench. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya’s case interpreted Booz Allen’s case and stated that only those category of disputes where the tenancy is governed by the special statutes or that where tenant enjoys statutory protection or that only specified courts are conferred jurisdiction are cases that can be said to be non-arbitrable. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court doubted the correctness of Himangni Enterprises a the Hon’ble Court raised following pertinent arguments indicating that the tenancy disputes (Unless covered by a special statute) are arbitrable: While interpreting Section Section 114 (Forfeiture of Non-payment of rent) of the Transfer of Property Act, the Hon’ble Court Prima-Facie observed that the said section does not provide for the relief of tenants as a class as a matter of public policy; The grounds stated in Section 111 (Determination of the lease)can be raised before an Arbitrator to decide as to whether a lease has or has not determined. None of the earlier decisions have decided on the Arbitrability of provisions of Transfer of Property Act has not been decided by Himangni and Natraj Enterprises. The Hon’ble Court drew strength from another decision Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan, (1999) 5 SCC 651, where it was held that there is no prohibition in the Specific Relief Act that issues relating to specific performance cannot be referred to arbitration, unlike the English statute [see paragraph 34]. The Hon’ble Court drew a parallel from the said decision and held that the Transfer of Property Act is silent on arbitrability and does not negate arbitrability. The Hon’ble Court also differentiated the provisions of Transfer of Property Act from the Indian Trusts Act 1882 where the Hon’ble Court discussed that the Arbitration is excluded by ‘necessary implication’. While deciding the exclusion by necessary implication, the following factors were considered: Whether the statute creates a special right or a liability;Whether the stature provides for determination of such right and liability by the tribunals so constituted; The Hon’ble Court discussed Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act where the trustee can apply to the court for an opinion without instituting any suit and observed that the Arbitrator cannot give such an opinion. Further, as per Section 46 of the Act, the trustee cannot renounce the trust without the permission of the Court and it is obvious that the Arbitrator cannot grant any such permission. With the aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble Court has referred the question of arbitrability of tenancy disputes to a larger bench. Conclusion Tenancy covered by Special Statute (Ex. Delhi Rent Control Act,1958) A conjoint reading of the decisions enumerated above, it is clear that the Lessor/Lessee disputes that are governed by a special statute are not arbitrable as held in Booz Allen and followed in Himangni and Vidya Drolia’s case. Tenancy covered by Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Further, till the time decision in Himangni case is not overruled by a larger bench, the law laid in Himagni’s case shall prevail and the tenancy disputes cannot be said to be Arbitrable. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

J&K HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Reservation For Pahari Speaking People In Medical Post Graduate Courses In UT [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesJ&K HC Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Reservation For Pahari Speaking People In Medical Post Graduate Courses In UT [Read Order] Akshita Saxena7 July 2020 2:06 AMShare This – xThe High Court of Jammu & Kashmir on Monday issued notice on a petition challenging 4% reservation quota for “pahari speaking people” in medical post graduate courses in various Government Medical colleges of the UT. The bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey has issued notice to the J&K Govt. and has posted the matter for hearing on July 27. Excessive…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?LoginThe High Court of Jammu & Kashmir on Monday issued notice on a petition challenging 4% reservation quota for “pahari speaking people” in medical post graduate courses in various Government Medical colleges of the UT. The bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey has issued notice to the J&K Govt. and has posted the matter for hearing on July 27. Excessive reservation quota The petition has been filed by certain MBBS graduates who wish to apply for post-graduate medical courses, through Advocate Gagan Basotra. They are primarily aggrieved by the fact that the 4% quota, granted in favour of “pahari speaking people” by amending Rule 15 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, results in 53% cumulative reservation, thereby leaving only 47% seats for the open category. This, “excessive reservation quota” as per the Petitioners, is constitutionally impermissible and is ultra-vires Section 9 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act. Section 9 of the J&K Reservation Act clearly provides that total percentage of reservation shall, in no case, exceed 50%. Similarly, as per the Constitutional mandate and various judicial precedents including Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 477, the total number of reserved seats cannot exceed 50% of the total seats. Less Reservation in Higher Education The Petitioner has relied on the principle “higher the learning in specialized fields, lesser the reservation”, evolved by the Supreme Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of MP. (1999) 7 SCC 120. He has submitted, “Reservation for post graduate medical courses should be less taking into view the high grade skill, talent, technical, scientific and research involved in these medical courses, as it would be dangerous to deprecate merit and excellence at higher levels . The higher you go in the letter of education, the lesser should be reservation.” It is accordingly contended that the impugned amended rule provides for a very high and excessive reservation and that too for reserved categories which are not traceable to the Indian Constitution and is thereby liable to be quashed. Language cannot be the sole criteria for determining backwardness The Petitioner has contended that the Government has provided 4% reservation for Pahari speaking people by designating them as socially and educationally backward community on linguistic basis, which cannot be the sole basis for being socially and educationally backward in terms of Articles 15(1), 15(4) and 15(5) of the Constitution of India. It is argued, “The Respondent No. 1 has though designated Pahari speaking people as socially & educationally backward, but the same is constitutionally impermissible as a language/ linguistic community cannot be the sole basis for being socially and educationally backward. The Hon’ble Court in Indra Sawhney’s and in subsequent cases have delineated the criteria and the basis of any community being educationally and socially backward.” They added, “In every case where the states decides to provide for reservation there should exist two circumstances, namely, “Backwardness” and “Inadequacy of representation’. The backwardness has to be based on objective factor whereas inadequacy has to factually exist. The Respondent No 1 without having determined any intelligent, objective and fair criteria that pahari speaking people are socially and educationally backward have prescribed 4% Reservation for a linguistic community.” The Petitioners have further contended that the identifiable criteria for determining any person belonging to a pahari speaking would be vague as is clearly evident by the amended Rule 21 of the J&K Reservation Rules which govern the procedure and authority for granting the certificate. Keeping in view that an important question of law has been raised in the petition, the Court has asked the Advocate General to remain present on the next date of hearing and assist the court in the matter. Case Details: Case Title: Gokul Sharma & Ors. v. Union Territory of JK & Ors Case No.: WP(C) No.1107/2020 Quorum: Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey Appearance: Advocate Gagan Basotra (for Petitioners) Click Here To Download Order Click Here To Download Petition Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

“Reckless And Ill Founded Allegations Against A Woman Who is Not A Party”: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Against Alleged Sex Racket

first_imgNews Updates”Reckless And Ill Founded Allegations Against A Woman Who is Not A Party”: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Against Alleged Sex Racket LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK4 Dec 2020 4:56 AMShare This – xThe Allahabad High Court on Thursday strongly reprimanded a writ Petitioner for disclosing the identity of a woman, both to the Police and in the judicial proceedings, allegedly involved in a sex racket. “The woman against whom allegations are levelled is not party to the proceedings. Even otherwise we are of the view that minimum standard of decency demands that identification of a…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?LoginThe Allahabad High Court on Thursday strongly reprimanded a writ Petitioner for disclosing the identity of a woman, both to the Police and in the judicial proceedings, allegedly involved in a sex racket. “The woman against whom allegations are levelled is not party to the proceedings. Even otherwise we are of the view that minimum standard of decency demands that identification of a woman is not required to be disclosed, in a fashion that has been done in the instance petition for writ,” a Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Piyush Agrawal observed. Also Read: Commercial Sexual Exploitation Of Women & Children: Calcutta HC Lays Down Guidelines For Investigation & Prosecution The Petitioner, Shiv Ram, had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, to take strict action against a sex racket, said to be knitted by several women. The Petitioner had averred that he was in possession of several video cassettes and audio recordings, relating to the issue. The Bench however noted that even though in the prayer clause the term ‘several women’ had been used by the Petitioner, but in the pleadings “reckless and ill-founded allegations” had been made against a single named woman. Not only this, the Court noted that reference of said woman was also given in a representation to the police officials of the area. The Bench while dismissing the petition, deprecated such averments and pulled up the Petitioner for making allegations against a woman in a “casual manner”. Also Read: Sex Workers Should Not Be Arrested, Rather They Must Be Treated As Victims Of Crime: Calcutta HC Last year, the Supreme Court had issued notice on a plea seeking the protection of identity, reputation & integrity of individuals, allegedly accused of “Sexual Offences”, till completion of the investigation into the “truthfulness” of such allegations. “False accusation sometimes destroys the entire life of an innocent person and there has been instances where the person who has been falsely implicated have even committed suicide. It does not only destroy an individual’s life but creates a social stigma to the family members too. Need of the hour demands that some preventive measures must be taken so as to avoid and to deal with such situations in the interest of justice,” a PIL before the Top Court said. Case Title: Shiv Ram v. State of UP & Ors. Click Here To Download Order Read OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

People May Feel A Mob Led By Chief Minister & Law Minister Prevailed Over Rule Of Law : Calcutta High Court Stays Bail Granted To 4 TMC Leaders

first_imgTop StoriesPeople May Feel A Mob Led By Chief Minister & Law Minister Prevailed Over Rule Of Law : Calcutta High Court Stays Bail Granted To 4 TMC Leaders Nupur Thapliyal & Sparsh Upadhyay17 May 2021 11:55 AMShare This – xImage Courtesy: National HeraldTaking exception to the dharna led by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in front of CBI office against the arrest of four TMC leaders in the Narada scam, and the presence of state law minister with 2000-3000 supporters in the premises of the trial court which was hearing the bail applications of the accused, the Calcutta High Court observed that the confidence of the people in the justice system will be eroded if such incidents occur, while political leaders arrested, are being produced in the Court.After an urgent sitting held on Monday night(May 17), the Calcutta High Court stayed the order of Special CBI court, which granted bail to two TMC Ministers Firhad Hakim and Subrata Mukherjee, TMC MLA Madan Mitra and former Kolkata Mayor Sovan Chatterjee in the infamous Narada case.A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arjit Banerjee directed that the accused person shall be treated to be in judicial custody till further orders. “Public trust and confidence in the judicial system is more important, it being the last resort. They may have a feeling that it is not the rule of law that prevails but it is a mob that has an upper hand and especially in a case where it is led by the Chief Minister of the State in the office of CBI and by the Law Minister of the State in the Court Complex. If the parties to litigation believe in the Rule of Law such a system is not followed. The idea was different”, the Court observed.The Court began its order by referring to the “extra-ordinary situation” of the Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and Law Minister Moloy Ghatak leading a large mob of supporters to protest the CBI’s arrest of four TMC leaders.”This court has been called upon to deal with an extra-ordinary situation where Chief Minister of the State can sit on a dharna outside the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘CBI’)along with her supporters,which had investigated the case and was to present a charge-sheet in court against the accused who are senior party leaders of the party in power in the State, some of them being Ministers. Not only this, the Law Minister of the State was present in Court where the accused were to be presented along with mob of 2000 to 3000 supporters”, the Court said in the order.Facts of the CaseA case was registered under sec. 120B IPC, sec. 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (a) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against the accused persons alleging that they had accepted a substantial amount of illegal gratification from one sting operator namely Mathew Samuel. The accused persons were arrested on Monday morning and were thereafter produced before Special CBI Court.It was immediately after their arrest that a significant number of followers gheraoed the CBI office and did not allow the CBI officers to move out of their office to enable them to produce them in court. Moreover, Chief Minister of the State, Mamata Banerjee also arrived at the spot and sat on dharna along with the followers seeking an Unconditional release of the accused persons was sought from the CBI office.Submissions of Solicitor General of India, Tushar MehtaStating that some of the accused persons who are members of the State Cabinet were arrested in the matter in pursuance of the directions of the High Court, SGI submitted before the Court that the CBI office from where the accused persons were to be taken to the Court was gheraoed by the political supporters of the persons in custody. Submitting that even the CM of the State sat on dharna, Mehta apprised the Court that the Law Minister of the State went to the court where the accused persons were to be presented along with a “crowd of 2000 to 3000 supporters and remained in court throughout the day.”In view of this, Mehta submitted the powers of the Court to transfer trial to another court under sec. 407 Cr.P.C. can be exercised if it is expedient in the ends of justice to do so.Submitting so, it was argued that the Court must take up the matter immediately as otherwise, a message will go to the people that any order can be secured by pressure with “mobocracy”.Advocate General for the State of WB submitted that CBI officers were provided full protection by the local police for discharge of their duty. There is no official complaint filed by the CBI with the police about any incident. The AG also said that a proper application for transfer in terms of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been filed by the CBI.The High Court however said that the situation prevailing in the trial court, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, was sufficient to take cognizance of the matter for consideration of issue regarding transfer of trial.Court’s ObservationThe Calcutta High Court noted that a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against many accused including some of the Ministers in the present Government in the State of West Bengal, on the directions issued by the High Court. In these facts and circumstances, the Court observed,”If any order is passed by the Court the same will not have faith and confidence of the people in the system of administration of justice. Confidence of the people in the justice system will be eroded in case such types of incidents are allowed to happen in the matters where political leaders are arrested and are to be produced in the Court.” The Court added that the aforesaid facts are sufficient to take cognizance of the present matter with reference to the request of the learned Solicitor General of India for examination of the issue regarding the transfer of the trial. However, the Court did not touch upon the merits of the controversy but the manner in which pressure was sought to be put will not inspire the confidence of the people in the rule of law.Thus, the Court stayed the Order while noting:”As during the period when the arguments were heard, the order was passed by the Court below, we deem it appropriate to stay that order and direct that the accused person shall be treated to be in judicial custody till further orders. The authority in whose custody they are kept shall ensure that they have all medical facilities available as are required and they are treated in terms of the provisions of the Jail Manual.”The matter will be considered for further hearing tomorrow, May 19.Click Here To Download OrderRead OrderTagsMamata Banerjee Dharna Mamata Banerjee CBI Office Justice System #Calcutta High Court #Narada Scam #CBI #Special CBI Court #Trinamool Congress Calcutta High Court CBI Court TMC Leaders Next Storylast_img read more

Fianna Fail ministers set to turn down pay rise

first_img Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Previous articleINTO to keep close eye on Covid cases in schoolsNext article‘More needs to be done’ to find source of Covid-19 infections News Highland WhatsApp  Fianna Fail ministers are set to turn down a pay rise of around 2 thousand euro.It comes after Fine Gael said its ministers won’t accept the 2 per cent increase to the TD part of their salary.The Business Post reports the Green Party is expected to do the same – but hasn’t confirmed that yet. Twitter Google+ Homepage BannerNews DL Debate – 24/05/21 Facebook Facebook Journey home will be easier – Paul Hegarty WhatsAppcenter_img News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Google+ Pinterest Pinterest Twitter Harps come back to win in Waterford RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR By News Highland – February 28, 2021 Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Fianna Fail ministers set to turn down pay riselast_img read more