Mauritius Union Assurance Co. Limited (MUA.mu) listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius under the Insurance sector has released it’s 2017 interim results for the first quarter.For more information about Mauritius Union Assurance Co. Limited (MUA.mu) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Mauritius Union Assurance Co. Limited (MUA.mu) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Mauritius Union Assurance Co. Limited (MUA.mu) 2017 interim results for the first quarter.Company ProfileMauritius Union Assurance Co. Limited offers general insurance for individuals and corporates. The company operates through Casualty, Property, Life, and Other segments, where the Casualty segment offers motor, liability and cash in transit, personal accident and health insurance products. The Property segment provides fire and allied perils, engineering, marine, and all risks insurance products. The Life segment offers life and pension insurance products. The Other segment provides stock-broking services. The company provides additional financial services as well, where housing, educational and vehicle loans are offered. Mauritius Union Assurance Co. Limited has four subsidiaries that work under it, Feber Associates Ltd, National Mutual Fund Ltd and Phoenix TransAfrica Holdings Ltd are fully owned subsidiaries. The Group also owns an 80% stake in Associated Brokers Ltd. Mauritius Union Assurance Co. Limited is listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius.
The Greene King IPA Championship: Here’s you’re next instalment from England’s competitive second tierBy Richard Grainger Without any ado, here is what went down in round eight of the GK IPA Championship, with a top-versus-bottom battle and a few sides getting on a steady roll of wins.Burnell’s boys below par but too good for EalingLondon Welsh 28, Ealing Trailfinders 0London Welsh move six points clear of second-placed Bristol in the GK IPA Championship following their bonus point win against the division’s whipping boys at the Kassam Stadium on Sunday.Head coach Justin Burnell considered this a case of ‘job done’ and was not unduly concerned that it took until mid-way through the second period, when Tom May dotted down, for Welsh to secure the bonus point. “There was a huge physicality within the Bristol game — a lot of phases — and we have to take into account the fatigue element,” said Burnell, reflecting on their last outing.Wily old head: Welsh captain Tom May on the chargeEaling defended well and competed ferociously at the breakdown, but once again had nothing to show for their efforts. Welsh took a 21-point lead into the interval with tries from Rob Lewis and Gordon Ross to add to a penalty try.Next up for the Burnell’s boys is a trip to the Midlands to tackle resurgent Moseley who have three consecutive wins behind them. “Moseley will be on a high, and they’ll see us as an opportunity to keep their winning streak going,” said Burnell, “but we’ll be up for it.”Scottish scrum too strong for LeedsLondon Scottish 26, Leeds Carnegie 15It may have finished two tries a-piece at the Athletic ground on Saturday, but Leeds were for once outmuscled at the set piece as Scottish emerged worthy winners. The Exiles’ backs made good use of a plentiful supply of ball for fullback Jim Thompson and skipper Mark Bright to dot down in the first quarter. Facing a 20-3 interval deficit, Leeds turned up their physicality to dominate the second half, forcing Scottish to defend for long periods. Pete Lucock and Stevie McColl crossed for the visitors, but Dan Newton struck two penalties for the hosts to deny Leeds a losing bonus point.Mose make in three in a rowBedford Blues 13, Moseley 26Conceding an early score once again served to galvinise Moseley at Goldington Road on Friday night. Buster Lawrence’s fine solo effort wiped out Neville Edwards’ eighth minute try and put the visitors on track for their third consecutive GKIPA victory. during the Heineken Cup Launch at the Millennium Stadium on September 27, 2010 in Cardiff, Wales. Moseley outplayed the Blues in the second half, and when Matt Williams slipped through soft-shouldered Bedford tackling for the visitors’ third, it was game over for last year’s division finalists.Bristol complacency invites Rotherham fightback Bristol 36, Rotherham 26If Bristol’s first-team coach Sean Holley was pleased that his side picked up a try bonus point against fellow Aviva Premiership contenders Rotherham on Sunday, he will be less pleased with his team’s second half performance.Unimpressed: Bristol’s Sean HolleyIn the week that Bristol were docked a point for disciplinary reasons, Holley’s men led 30-9 early in the first half, but conceded seventeen points after the break as Rotherham fought back at the Memorial Stadium.“We’re delighted with the five points,” said Holley, “but we dropped off in the second half and let Rotherham back into it which isn’t really acceptable.”Pirates sunk by last minute penaltyJersey 27, Cornish Pirates 25With a 15 point deficit early in the second half and an error count suggesting a comeback was about as likely as the build-up to Christmas beginning in December, Jersey stunned the visitors with 17 unanswered points in an action packed final quarter at St. Peter on Saturday.Niall O’Connor converted Mark McCrea’s try before adding a touchline conversion after Tom Brown had crossed three minutes from time.With the final kick of the match, O’Connor completed the turnaround with a 45-metre penalty. Despite the win, director of rugby Ben Harvey felt that his side had played better and lost: “… this is still a massive result for us and should give the players a great deal of self-belief.” LATEST RUGBY WORLD MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION DEALS Nottingham 15, Plymouth Albion 10Finally, Nottingham dug deep to pick up their third GKIPA win. Matt Jarvis kicked his fifth penalty ten minutes from time at Meadow Lane on Sunday to secure the points. Centre Heath Stevens scored Albion’s try.
Please enter your name here LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Support conservation and fish with NEW Florida specialty license plate Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter TAGSOrange County Sheriff’s Office Previous articleA timeline of events in the manhunt of Markeith LoydNext articleWhat Your Face Is – And Isn’t – Saying Right Now Denise Connell RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Free webinar for job seekers on best interview answers, hosted by Goodwill June 11 Please enter your comment! The Anatomy of Fear You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here From The Orange County Sheriff’s OfficeIt is with heavy hearts that we announce the death of our beloved Deputy First Class Norman Lewis. DFC Lewis lost his life after a traffic crash at the intersection of Balboa and North Pine Hills Road at 9:44 a.m. today. Florida Highway Patrol is handling the investigation.DFC Lewis was 35 years old and had been with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office since March of 2005.Norm was an esteemed member of our Motors/DUI Unit. He was a graduate of the University of Central Florida and played football for the Knights.He will be deeply missed.
Year: 2018 House in Restelo / Pedro Domingos Arquitectos Save this picture!© Francisco Nogueira+ 52Curated by Matheus Pereira Share House in Restelo / Pedro Domingos ArquitectosSave this projectSaveHouse in Restelo / Pedro Domingos Arquitectos “COPY” Photographs: Francisco Nogueira Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/955838/house-in-restelo-pedro-domingos-arquitectos Clipboard Houses Area: 400 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Architects: Pedro Domingos Arquitectos Area Area of this architecture project Photographs ArchDaily Manufacturers: AEG, BRUMA, Berker, 2GM, Betãolis, Carpinlux, RocaCity:LisboaCountry:PortugalMore SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!© Francisco NogueiraRecommended ProductsMetallicsTECU®Copper Surface – Classic CoatedWindowsSolarluxSliding Window – CeroWoodEGGERLaminatesWindowsJansenWindows – Janisol PrimoText description provided by the architects. The house is located in Restelo near Belém. A neighborhood made up of single-family houses disposed of in an amphitheater shape towards the Tagus river. The house is located on the north limit of this set, in the transition between the two store housing and multifamily buildings with 4 floors. The house for a family of 5 people is located in a small plot, at the south of the complex of multifamily housing buildings. The south facade of the house is the “face” of the long housing block.Save this picture!© Francisco NogueiraA monolith in exposed concrete that develops on 4 floors, seeking on each floor to establish different relationships with the water tank, the garden, and the view towards the river. A conventional program for a large family is spread over four floors. The ground floors for the social areas and the last two floors for the private areas. The stairs that link all floors located on the north side of the house establishing different relationships of complicity between the floors, uniting them in a single space. The ground floor drawback in relation to the main body of the house conquering a garden for the house. This floor contains a family room, guest bedroom, storage, technical areas, and laundry. The entrance floor, where the living room and kitchen are located, uses a generous balcony that opens into the garden and the water tank.Save this picture!© Francisco NogueiraSave this picture!© Francisco NogueiraSave this picture!Plan – Ground FloorSave this picture!© Francisco NogueiraSave this picture!© Francisco NogueiraThe 1st floor contains the 3 children’s bedrooms organized around a patio, a gathering space. The top floor contains the bedroom and other spaces for the parents ending on a generous balcony, a belvedere looking towards the river. The south facade is designed with a set of balconies and patios, which generate a deepness, protecting the living spaces and disrupting the vertical scale of the house.Save this picture!© Francisco NogueiraSave this picture!© Francisco NogueiraSave this picture!SectionSave this picture!© Francisco NogueiraSave this picture!© Francisco NogueiraProject gallerySee allShow lessLa Concordia Amphitheater / Colab-19 + Taller Architects + SCASelected ProjectsNo Waste ChallengeBuilt Projects & Masterplans Share Projects Portugal CopyHouses•Lisboa, Portugal ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/955838/house-in-restelo-pedro-domingos-arquitectos Clipboard “COPY” CopyAbout this officePedro Domingos ArquitectosOfficeFollowProductsGlassConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesLisbonConcrete HousesConcrete InteriorsPortugalPublished on January 28, 2021Cite: “House in Restelo / Pedro Domingos Arquitectos” [Casa no Restelo / Pedro Domingos Arquitectos] 28 Jan 2021. ArchDaily. Accessed 10 Jun 2021.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, bosses hired Pinkerton Agency goon squads to infiltrate unions, break strikes and intimidate workers who were trying to organize. Graphic: supportamazonworkers.orgToday’s hired union-busting thugs are more likely to be high-paid lawyers tasked with turning labor laws — intended to protect workers — into weapons against union organizing. In the 21st century, bosses pay an estimated $340 million a year to a handful of law firms to do the dirty work to keep their companies union-free.One particularly nefarious anti-labor firm is Morgan Lewis & Bockius — in 2020 the fourth largest U.S. law firm with 31 offices, over 2,200 lawyers and nearly $2.3 billion in annual revenue. Morgan Lewis’s website boasts of the firm’s ability to help companies “avoid union penetration and strategically shape bargaining units to minimize potential union organizing victories,” claiming to be effective both at the [bargaining] table and in a “behind the scenes role.”In November 2020, when the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU-UFCW) petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for a union election at the Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Ala., Amazon immediately hired Harry Johnson, a former NLRB member and a lawyer at Morgan Lewis, to fight the election.Morgan Lewis has insidiously helped Amazon remain union-free for years. It blocked union organizing efforts by technicians in 2014, and more recently it defended the company against workers’ lawsuits over inadequate COVID-19 safety and charges of discrimination filed by pro-Black Lives Matter workers. Amazon’s anti-union propaganda and efforts to delay the Bessemer union vote, manipulate the bargaining unit and appeal the NLRB ruling supporting a mail-in union election come straight from the Morgan Lewis playbook.Morgan Lewis has had over six decades to hone its union-busting skills. In the 1970s, the company appeared frequently in the AFL-CIO’s “Report on Union Busting.”In June 1981, Morgan Lewis attorneys representing the Federal Aviation Administration were hired by President Ronald Reagan to infamously break the strike of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO). That labor union defeat marked the opening shot in an antilabor offensive still impacting workers to this day.Major League Baseball hired Morgan Lewis during both the 1990 spring lockout of players and the 1994-1995 baseball strike. In 2014, the firm was hired by the U.S. Postal Service to represent management’s interests during contract negotiations with the American Postal Workers Union. In September 2018, Morgan Lewis was hired by McDonald’s to craft strategy to defeat the Fight for $15-and-a-Union campaign. Former President Donald Trump nominated Morgan Lewis partner John Ring to the NLRB, where he specifically promoted rulings that made it harder for McDonald’s workers to organize. Around the same time, the Wall Street Journal named Morgan Lewis’ top lawyers as members of the “$1,000-Plus-an-Hour Club,” based on the amount they billed. (news.artnet.com, June 11, 2020)Morgan Lewis’s high-paid lawyers have represented many powerful corporations in cases before the NLRB, including General Motors, General Electric, Aramark, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Pfizer, Boeing and Marriott International — always defending the interests of the bosses against the workers. The law firm also represents anti-union front groups including the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which opposes democracy and unions in the workplace, and the Coalition for Workplace Safety, which seeks to evade and rescind OSHA rules.On Feb. 20, cross-country solidarity rallies for the Amazon workers in Bessemer — who’ve dubbed themselves BAmazon Union — will include a spirited protest outside Morgan Lewis offices in Philadelphia. This and future days of solidarity will offer a way to challenge the firm’s union-busting role. A list of the location of other company offices is available on their website.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
By Emerson NafzigerUniversity of IllinoisOne of the most pressing questions as planting continues into June after a very wet May is whether or not the high rainfall amounts over the past month have affected the amount of nitrogen fertilizer needed for the corn crop this year. This is a complicated question, related both to concern about how much early-applied N might be lost and to decreased yield potential from late planting that might lower the need for N. The recent price increase in corn also provides an incentive to make sure the crop gets enough N.Dr. John Sawyer of Iowa State University posted an article this week in which he described their finding that the crop is likely to respond to additional N if total rainfall from April through June exceeds 16 inches in most of Iowa, and if March-June rainfall exceeds 18 inches in southeastern Iowa. The MRTN rate from the N rate calculator in Iowa is 140 lb N per acre, less than the 180 lb N or so in southern and central Illinois, and 170 in northern Illinois, for corn following soybean.Link to full article:https://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/?p=4634 Rain, Late Planting, and Nitrogen By Hoosier Ag Today – Jun 7, 2019 Facebook Twitter Facebook Twitter SHARE Previous articleBurnin the Bean, episode 6 – Machinery PeteNext articlePurdue Extension Has Resources to Deal With Late Planting Hoosier Ag Today Home News Feed Rain, Late Planting, and Nitrogen SHARE
Facebook LUH system challenged by however, work to reduce risk to patients ongoing – Dr Hamilton Twitter Guidelines for reopening of hospitality sector published Almost 10,000 appointments cancelled in Saolta Hospital Group this week Google+ By admin – July 9, 2015 WhatsApp Police in Strabane issue warning after young girl approached online Twitter Facebook WhatsApp Pinterest Previous articleSligo offers Kelly first chance of National Rally titleNext articleHighland’s Farming News – Thursday 9th July admin Google+ RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Business Matters Ep 45 – Boyd Robinson, Annette Houston & Michael Margey Calls for maternity restrictions to be lifted at LUH Police in Strabane have issued a warning to parents and teenagers after a local girl was approached online and asked to send revealing photographs.According to police, the 16-year-old girl was approached by someone who claimed to be a ‘representative’ of a well-known modelling agency.Police say the contact with the 16-year-old girl started off innocently enough with the girl being asked for general photographs of herself.But the teenage girl became suspicious when asked for more revealing shots.Police are warning that this is not the way genuine agencies conduct their business.And they are asking any young girls or women who may be interested in a modelling career to contact an agency personally and talk to them face-to-face.Police in Strabane are also advising people not to post or send revealing photos online. GAA decision not sitting well with Donegal – Mick McGrath Homepage BannerNews Pinterest
News UpdatesDelhi High Court Passes Anti Suit Injunction, Temporarily Restraining Defendant From Going Ahead With An Infringement Suit In New York Court Karan Tripathi4 May 2020 5:19 AMShare This – xDelhi High Court has allowed Hindustan Times Media Limited’s plea seeking interim injunction against a company from using domain name ‘hindustan.com’ and from fighting a trademark infringement suit in a New York court. While noting that the present court has jurisdiction to hear this matter as per section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, the Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh…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?LoginDelhi High Court has allowed Hindustan Times Media Limited’s plea seeking interim injunction against a company from using domain name ‘hindustan.com’ and from fighting a trademark infringement suit in a New York court. While noting that the present court has jurisdiction to hear this matter as per section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, the Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the suit instituted in New York is prima facie vexatious and oppressive to the Plaintiffs as they have not asserted trademark rights in the USA. The present suit was filed by Hindustan Times Media Limited seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants from using the domain name or any mark deceptively similar or identical to its registered trademark ‘Hindustan’ and ‘Hindustan Times’. The Plaintiff also asked for a direction restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the suit titled Brainlink International, Inc. v. HT Media Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Action No.1 20-cv-01279) before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York or from instituting or filing any other suit/applications/proceedings in any Court of Law in relation to the disputed domain name or any issue which forms the subject matter of the present Suit. While claiming that the Defendants are infringing and cybersquatting, the Plaintiff submitted that it had issued a cease and desist Notice dated 24.12.2019 to the Defendants to acquire the Domain name, but the Defendants quoted an exorbitant amount of US $ 3 million in the reply dated 14.02.2020 to sell the Domain name. When the Plaintiffs responded on 02.03.2020 with a counter offer, Defendants, filed a Declaratory Suit for non-infringement against the Plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, around 09.03.2020. It was further argued by the Plaintiff that the Defendants, admittedly, have no use for the Domain name other than to profit from squatting on the same. Defendants acquired the impugned Domain name in 1996 in bad faith to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs’ publications. ‘Use by the Defendants, without any authorisation/license/consent from the Plaintiffs amounts to Trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Act and passive holding of the Domain name amounts to Passing Off and unfair competition of the Plaintiffs’ Trademarks’, the Plaintiff argued. Plaintiff further submitted that this is a fit case for the court to restrain the proceedings of a Foreign Court, by an anti-suit injunction. Defendants, it was argued, are amenable to the personal jurisdiction of this court as the website of the Defendants can be accessed by viewers within Delhi. Further, the Defendants are willing to sell the Domain name to the Plaintiffs, who are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Citing section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, the Plaintiff contended that this court will have jurisdiction in this matter as the Plaintiff has registered its trademark and carries out its business within the jurisdiction of this court. ‘if the injunction is declined, irreparable harm and loss would be caused to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will be constrained to defend themselves before the EDNY Court, which has no jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs or the subject matter of the dispute’, the Plaintiff submitted. Therefore, in the present matter, the court had to examine that whether the Defendants are amenable to personal jurisdiction of this Court, whether injustice would be caused to the Plaintiffs if the injunction was refused and which would be the Forum Conveniens, in case there were more than one Forum available to the Plaintiffs. While observing that the Defendants have not used to domain ‘hindustan.com’ since 2000, the court noted that the Defendants’ only motive behind registering such a domain name was to profit from it, which is a classic case of cybersquatting, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Private Limited. The bad faith of the Defendants, the court observed, is also reflected by the faith that they charged an exorbitant amount of 3 million dollars against an offer of 1 million dollars made by the Plaintiff to buy the domain. While holding that this court has jurisdiction over the present matter, the court noted that the notice and the ensuing email correspondence between the parties wherein the Plaintiff had shown interest in buying the domain took place in Delhi and precedes the suit in New York and is hence merely a counter-blast to the Plaintiffs‟ legitimate exercise of their rights and availment of remedies. Thus, a substantial and integral part of the cause of action under Section 20 (c) CPC for the Plaintiffs to file the present suit, has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The court also granted interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff while relying upon following facts: Defendants registered the domain name in bad faith and the same has been lying dormant since 2000 It has really affected the goodwill and business of the Plaintiff which carries out business in India The Trademarks of the Plaintiffs are registered in India and the Plaintiffs‟ goodwill spills over Internationally Defendants had offered to sell the Domain name to the Plaintiffs at a price of US $ 3 Million but once unsuccessful, in the attempt to profiteer, they filed a suit for Declaration in order to further their intention to frustrate the Plaintiffs from availing of their remedies. The filing of the suit is also an attempt to legitimise the alleged infringement action of the registered Trademarks of the Plaintiffs. On this specific ground, the court also temporarily injuncted the Defendants from proceeding further with the suit titled Brainlink International, Inc. v. HT Media Ltd. and Another before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York or to institute/file any suit, applications, proceedings in any Court of Law or Authority, in relation to the impugned Domain name or in relation to any issue which forms the subject matter of the present suit. The Defendants are further restrained from creating third party rights in the domain name ‘hindustan.com’.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] 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
Top Stories[Central Vista Project] SC Allows Filing Of Writ Petition Against Environmental Clearance Granted To New Parliament Building; Expands Scope Of Hearing Sanya Talwar & Nilshish Chaudhary29 July 2020 1:43 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the filing of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Environmental Clearance granted on June 17 for the construction of a new Parliament building as part of Union Government’s ambitious Central Vista Project.A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar told Senior Advocate Shyam Divan that his clients will be given a week’s time…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 Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the filing of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Environmental Clearance granted on June 17 for the construction of a new Parliament building as part of Union Government’s ambitious Central Vista Project.A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar told Senior Advocate Shyam Divan that his clients will be given a week’s time to file the writ petition, thereby expanding the scope of the hearing to include the issue of Environmental Clearances granted on June 17. This will be in addition to the issue surrounding the legality of the change in land use which is already under the consideration of the top court through two petitions pending before it.The Centre has to file a reply to the plea within a week of receiving the same.The matter will be considered next on August 17.In March, the Supreme Court had transferred to itself the petitions pending in Delhi High Court challenging the Central Vista Project.On Wednesday, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjiv Khanna took up pleas filed by Rajeev Suri and Lt Col (retd) Anuj Srivastava against the Central Vista redevelopment project.Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued in an intervening application (filed on behalf of private individuals carrying expertise in the field) pointed out that the project involves other issues like grant of environmental clearance which can be challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), but that the top court’s earlier order posed a hindrance to take recourse to other legal remedies.When arguments commenced, the bench made it clear that it shall hear the issues pertaining to the aspects of the challenge to “Land Use” only, as have been raised in the main batch of pleas.At this juncture, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted that the clearances obtained for the parliament building were part of the Central Vista Project and that there could be no change in land use in terms of the same.Divan continued to make submissions challenging the legality of the Environmental clearances granted on June 17. He added that the process of grant of EC was ridden with non application of mind on part of the EAC and that mandatory legal process was unaccounted for in the case.He submitted that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change ought to have considered the proposal for new Parliament building as a part of the Central Vista Project for the purpose of Environmental Clearance, instead of treating it as a standalone project.Ultimately, the bench ordered:”…Heard preliminary objections by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan. Mr Divan submits that applicants will file Substantive Writ Petition challenging June 17’s Environmental clearance while maintaining the preliminary objections already raised. Respondents have no objection to this. A response to be filed by the Union of India to the writ being filed by Mr Divan. We allow a week’s time to Mr Divan to file the petition and a week to centre to reply within a week of receiving the plea from Mr Divan…”In light of this, the bench stated that it shall hear the issues pertaining to land use in the week commencing August 17.Last week, the Central Public Works Department had filed an affidavit stating that a new parliament building was necessary as the existing building was old, unsafe and packed to capacity.Background:The two pleas already before the top court contend that 20th March notification of the Government, which supersedes a Public Notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 19 December, 2019, is a subjugation of the Rule of Law and judicial protocol as the 2019 notice is currently sub judice before the Supreme Court.With regard to the Government’s Rs. 20,000 crore Central Vista project, the DDA had issued a Public Notice inviting objections against proposed changes in land use in December 2019. This notification was challenged before the Delhi High Court on account of being ultra vires Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act 1957, as well as being beyond the powers of DDA to do so. It was further contested that the plan was not in conformity with the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 (MPD2021) and in violation of “larger laws of the country”. On March 6, a Bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari transferred the matter to itself. On March 20, 2020 the Centre notified a change in land use pertaining to approximately 86 acres of land in the heart of Lutyens Delhi, marked by structures like the Parliament, Rashtrapati Bhavan, India Gate, North Block and South Block amongst others. The same petitioner then moved the Apex Court with a fresh plea against the Centre’s notification. Urging the Court to quash the March 2020 notification issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the instant plea avers that the decision was in violation of a citizen’s extended version of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21. Calling it a brash move, the plea claims that it would deprive people of enjoying highly treasured open and green spaces. “(The notification) is violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India and, violates the extended version of Article 21 the Right to life, guaranteed by the Constitution of India. That Respondent No. 1 brashly issued Notification No. SO 1192 (E) dated 20th March 2020, changing land use, which will deprive residents of Delhi and citizens of India a vast chunk of highly treasured open and green space in the Central Vista area, available for public, semi-public, social and recreational activity, stands against Article 21, Right to Life the right to enjoyment of a wholesome life.” The plea further invokes Article 49 of the Constitution to assert that the State is obligated to protect places and objects of national importance. Citing the Public Trust Doctrine to buttress this point, the plea urges that it is “upon the State to protect such resources for the use of the general public, rather than to permit it only for use of a certain class or section of the people.” On April 30, the Supreme Court refused to stay the project, stating that “during COVID-19, nobody is going to do anything”, referring to possible construction on the allocated land. On 19 June, the Central Government informed the Supreme Court that it could not give an assurance that no work on the ground would be done with respect to the Central Vista project, despite Hegde submitting that administrative clearances were being given, with no objections. The Bench, however, raised the question whether the Apex Court could restrain the authorities from acting as per the law. Next Story
Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Facebook Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programme WhatsApp Google+ Snow and ice warning in place for Donegal Facebook A status yellow snow and ice warning is now in place for the entire country.It’s valid until nine o’clock tomorrow morning, with Met Eireann forecasting wintry showers.It also says there will be some snow accumulations with icy patches also likely to form.Claire Meehan from AA Roadwatch has this advice for anyone out on the roads:Audio Playerhttp://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/meedgdfgdfghan7am.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. WhatsApp Community Enhancement Programme open for applications Twitter Twitter Google+ AudioHomepage BannerNews By News Highland – February 25, 2020 RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Pinterest Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Pinterest Previous articleCouncil urged to utilise local park at GlencarNext articleConcern over gold mining licence applications in the Sperrins News Highland Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Publicans in Republic watching closely as North reopens further