first_imgDar es Salaam Stock Exchange ( listed on the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange under the Investment sector has released it’s 2012 annual report.For more information about Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange ( reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange ( company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange (  2012 annual report.Company ProfileDar es Salaam Stock Exchange (DSE) is a stock exchange in Tanzania where stock brokers and traders can buy and sell securities such as shares of stock and bonds and other financial instruments. It was incorporated as a private company limited by guarantee in 1996 and started operating in 1998. It is a member of the African Stock Exchanges Association with 24 listed companies, 10 licensed brokers and 3 custodian banks. The DSE launched a second-tier market in 2013, the Enterprise Growth Market (EGM), with lower listing requirements; designed to attract small and medium companies with high growth potential. In 2015, the DSE changed its registration status from being limited by guarantee to being limited by shares. It is the third Exchange in Africa to demutualise after the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) and the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE). The DSE operates in close association with the Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya and the Uganda Securities Exchange in Uganda. Plans are underway to integrate the three to form a single East African bourse. DSE is based in Dar es Salaam which is the commercial capital and largest city in Tanzania.last_img read more

first_imgOK Zimbabwe Limited ( listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange under the Retail sector has released it’s 2015 presentation results for the half year.For more information about OK Zimbabwe Limited ( reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the OK Zimbabwe Limited ( company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: OK Zimbabwe Limited (  2015 presentation results for the half year.Company ProfileOK Zimbabwe Limited is a leading retail group in Zimbabwe with a product range that extends from groceries and houseware products to clothing and textiles. The inaugural branch was opened in Harare (then Salisbury) in 1942 and today, is one of the most recognised supermarket brands in Zimbabwe. The company trades under various branded store names, including OK stores, Bon Marché and OKMart. OK Zimbabwe sells products in its grocery range under its own home brand; OK Pot ‘O Gold, OK Value, Shoppers’ Choice and Bon Marché Premier Choice labels. OK Zimbabwe Limited operates approximately 61 retail outlets throughout Zimbabwe and owns subsidiaries that complement its diverse product offering; Eriswell (Private) Limited, Swan Technologies (Private) Limited and Winterwest (Private) Limited. OK Zimbabwe Limited is listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchangelast_img read more

first_img Image source: Getty Images. 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. Christopher Ruane | Saturday, 12th December, 2020 | More on: TSCO Tesco (LSE: TSCO) has been performing well lately. It voluntarily handed back over half a billion pounds in business rates relief. That suggests the company is very confident about its performance. But there is a more important piece of news about Tesco shares, which I think the market is overlooking. It’s worth knowing about — I think it could make Tesco shares worth buying right now.Tesco is focusingThe supermarket chain is very successful in its home market of the UK. But that has become more competitive. Chains like Aldi and Lidl have kept Tesco on its feet. Indeed, even US retailing giant Wal-Mart has decided to sell its UK Asda business.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…Tesco has responded by focussing more on its core business. For example, in June it agreed to sell its business in Poland. It has also been in the process of pulling out of south east Asia. Tesco had a sizeable business in Thailand and Malaysia. Its familiar Tesco Lotus stores are a common sight there and popular with British holidaymakers as well as locals. I think withdrawing from those distant markets makes strategic sense for Tesco. It will enable the company to focus more on the UK, where it is the market leader. That should be good for Tesco shares.But the most exciting part from a shareholder’s perspective is the financial payout. The company expects to receive around £8bn for the sale. This week Tesco announced that it had finalised the sale, which is set to complete this month. Surprisingly, the market seemed to pay little attention. The shares only moved a few pence over the week.Why I think Tesco shares will do wellThe company said in its interim results that it plans to use £2.5bn of the proceeds to eliminate the deficit in its pension fund. That cleans up the balance sheet, which should be good for Tesco shares.But there is a more immediate reason to get excited about Tesco shares. The chain plans to return £5bn of the proceeds to shareholders. That works out at around 50p a share!It hasn’t confirmed whether this will be a special dividend, or a share buyback. If it is through a share buyback, the number of shares in circulation will be reduced, which should increase the value of each outstanding share. With a special dividend it will be a straight payment. With Tesco shares trading around 225p currently, that is a big payout. Once the capital return plan is announced, if it is a special dividend I expect the shares to jump on the good news.Tesco raised its interim dividend this year by an impressive 20%. That suggests a full-year payout of 11p, which would be a yield close to 5% even without considering the special dividend. So Tesco is already an attractive income pick. I also expect that a special dividend could lead to an appreciation in the share price too.I have put Tesco on my watchlist and am keen to find out more about the capital distribution. The company will likely announce any special dividend shortly after the upcoming completion of the Asian sale. So I think the time to make a move is now. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Tesco shares: Good dividend news christopherruane has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Tesco. 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 See all posts by Christopher Ruane “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! 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. Enter Your Email Addresslast_img read more

first_imgJennings, other Episcopal leaders react to Charlottesville violence The Church Investment Group Commends the Taskforce on the Theology of Money on its report, The Theology of Money and Investing as Doing Theology Church Investment Group Virtual Celebration of the Jerusalem Princess Basma Center Zoom Conversation June 19 @ 12 p.m. ET Curate Diocese of Nebraska New Berrigan Book With Episcopal Roots Cascade Books Rector Martinsville, VA Racial Justice & Reconciliation Rector Washington, DC Associate Rector for Family Ministries Anchorage, AK Rector Smithfield, NC Course Director Jerusalem, Israel Rector Hopkinsville, KY Rector/Priest in Charge (PT) Lisbon, ME Curate (Associate & Priest-in-Charge) Traverse City, MI Director of Administration & Finance Atlanta, GA Assistant/Associate Rector Washington, DC Youth Minister Lorton, VA This Summer’s Anti-Racism Training Online Course (Diocese of New Jersey) June 18-July 16 Family Ministry Coordinator Baton Rouge, LA Director of Music Morristown, NJ AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to PrintFriendlyPrintFriendlyShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterShare to EmailEmailShare to MoreAddThis Episcopal Charities of the Diocese of New York Hires Reverend Kevin W. VanHook, II as Executive Director Episcopal Charities of the Diocese of New York Bishop Diocesan Springfield, IL Remember Holy Land Christians on Jerusalem Sunday, June 20 American Friends of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem Seminary of the Southwest announces appointment of two new full time faculty members Seminary of the Southwest In-person Retreat: Thanksgiving Trinity Retreat Center (West Cornwall, CT) Nov. 24-28 The Church Pension Fund Invests $20 Million in Impact Investment Fund Designed to Preserve Workforce Housing Communities Nationwide Church Pension Group Featured Jobs & Calls Tags Submit an Event Listing Rector Collierville, TN Ya no son extranjeros: Un diálogo acerca de inmigración Una conversación de Zoom June 22 @ 7 p.m. ET center_img Featured Events Assistant/Associate Priest Scottsdale, AZ Rector Belleville, IL Rector Bath, NC Associate Priest for Pastoral Care New York, NY Episcopal Migration Ministries’ Virtual Prayer Vigil for World Refugee Day Facebook Live Prayer Vigil June 20 @ 7 p.m. ET Canon for Family Ministry Jackson, MS Assistant/Associate Rector Morristown, NJ Priest Associate or Director of Adult Ministries Greenville, SC Rector Shreveport, LA Rector Knoxville, TN Submit a Press Release Press Release Service TryTank Experimental Lab and York St. John University of England Launch Survey to Study the Impact of Covid-19 on the Episcopal Church TryTank Experimental Lab Rector and Chaplain Eugene, OR Submit a Job Listing Rector Pittsburgh, PA Rector (FT or PT) Indian River, MI Associate Rector Columbus, GA Missioner for Disaster Resilience Sacramento, CA Priest-in-Charge Lebanon, OH Inaugural Diocesan Feast Day Celebrating Juneteenth San Francisco, CA (and livestream) June 19 @ 2 p.m. PT Rector Albany, NY An Evening with Presiding Bishop Curry and Iconographer Kelly Latimore Episcopal Migration Ministries via Zoom June 23 @ 6 p.m. ET Join the Episcopal Diocese of Texas in Celebrating the Pauli Murray Feast Online Worship Service June 27 Rector Tampa, FL Posted Aug 14, 2017 Cathedral Dean Boise, ID Advocacy Peace & Justice, Charlottesville, last_img read more

first_imgPhotographs:  Courtesy of Lab Modus+ 16 Share Year:  Area:  1800 m² Area:  1800 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Prince Housing Sales Center / Lab Modus 2013 Architects: Lab Modus Area Area of this architecture project Photographs Projects ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOr Clipboard ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOr Clipboard 2013 ArchDaily CopyAbout this officeLab ModusOfficeFollowProductsWoodSteelConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousingTaoyuan CountyHousingResidentialPublished on November 05, 2013Cite: “Prince Housing Sales Center / Lab Modus” 05 Nov 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Read commentsBrowse the CatalogPartitionsSkyfoldChoosing the Skyfold Wall for Your SpaceGlass3MGlass Finish – FASARA™ GeometricShower ColumnshansgroheShoulder ShowersPanels / Prefabricated AssembliesMorin Corp.Metal Wall Systems – ExposedStonesCosentinoSurfaces – Dekton® Stonika SeriesConcrete FloorsSikaIndustrial Floor CoatingsHanging LampsLouis PoulsenPendant Lights – KeglenDoorsSky-FrameInsulated Sliding Doors – Sky-Frame SlopeThermalSchöckMinimizing Thermal Bridges in BalconiesWindowspanoramah!®ah! Ultra MinimalistEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesAlucoilStructural Honeycomb Panels – LarcoreWork ChairsDynamobelWork Chair – SLAT 16More products »Read commentsSave世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否翻译成中文现有为你所在地区特制的网站?想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?Take me there »✖You’ve started following your first account!Did you know?You’ll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream Housing “COPY” CopySave this picture!Courtesy of Lab ModusRecommended ProductsMetallicsKriskadecorMetal Fabric – Outdoor CladdingMetallicsSculptformClick-on Battens in Ivanhoe ApartmentsMetallicsTECU®Copper Surface – Classic CoatedFiber Cements / CementsRieder GroupFacade Panels – concrete skin The site is located in a newly developed area near Taiwan High Speed Rail’s Taoyuan Station. The scheme is composed of a two-story rectangular volumes and a deformed double layered perforated metal louvers. Conceptualized of a “dancing box”, we intend to give dynamic rhymes in this open field site. These dynamics present significant challenges for us working to shape a built environment that will meet commecial and perceptive needs both today and future.Giving maximum presence to the context, the massing of project applies advantage of the openness of the site to create a continuous translucency to all dimensions of the project. The irregular openings trimmed out from metal louver façade are to provide air and views to the corresponded interior spaces.  Therefore, the interior can adapt the filtered sunlight and air into spaces.Save this picture!Ground Floor PlanProject gallerySee allShow lessCertest Biotec / ACXT ArquitectosSelected ProjectsWhere Automobiles & Architecture MeetArchitecture NewsProject locationAddress:Taoyuan County, TaiwanLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address. Share Year:  Prince Housing Sales Center / Lab ModusSave this projectSavePrince Housing Sales Center / Lab ModusSave this picture!Courtesy of Lab ModusHousing•Taoyuan County, “COPY”last_img read more

first_imgNews News August 25, 2020 Find out more Two journalists murdered just days apart in Venezuela January 13, 2021 Find out more June 15, 2020 Find out more July 6, 2006 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Two months of threats against TV programme host Coronavirus “information heroes” – journalism that saves lives RSF_en Receive email alerts Reporters Without Borders voiced concern today about the death threats received during the past two months by Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, the presenter of the programme “La Entrevista” (The Interview) on the privately-owned television station RCTV, and called on attorney-general Isaías Rodríguez to launch an immediate investigation with a view to ending them.“We are aware of the controversy about Rodríguez’s programme, but you cannot make threats against a journalist just because you disagree with him,” the press freedom organisation said. “We hope the federal judicial authorities will not only give him the necessary protection but will also carry out a swift investigation and punish those responsible.”Rodríguez has been getting death threats by phone and e-mail since May that are targeted at himself and the people around him. He said he has been followed and was approached on the street by someone brandishing a firearm. He has also been the target of demonstrations outside RCTV headquarters.He now has bodyguards and he and the TV station’s lawyers are considering legal action.A longtime critic of President Hugo Chávez’s government, Rodríguez hosts one of Venezuela’s most controversial TV programmes. According to the Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (IPYS), a local press freedom group, the threats against him began after he referred in his programme to an alleged case corruption involving a supreme court justice.center_img VenezuelaAmericas Follow the news on Venezuela Organisation New wave of censorship targeting critical media outlets to go further VenezuelaAmericas News Help by sharing this information Newslast_img read more

first_imgColumnsGrappling With The Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 Megha Jani9 Feb 2021 3:05 AMShare This – xWith the enactment of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (“the Gujarat Act” or “the Act”) that came into effect from 29.08.2020, Gujarat became the fourth State to have a Land Grabbing Act. Andhra Pradesh was the first State to enact it in 1982 followed by Assam in 2011 and Karnataka in 2014. The Gujarat Act draws heavily and selectively from the earlier acts giving us a maze…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?LoginWith the enactment of Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 (“the Gujarat Act” or “the Act”) that came into effect from 29.08.2020, Gujarat became the fourth State to have a Land Grabbing Act. Andhra Pradesh was the first State to enact it in 1982 followed by Assam in 2011 and Karnataka in 2014. The Gujarat Act draws heavily and selectively from the earlier acts giving us a maze of an Act. An effort to understand its scope and effect throws many questions with no easy answers. Briefly speaking, it makes past acts punishable offences with retrospective effect (with minimum sentence of 10 years extending upto 14 years and fine, which may extend to jantri value of properties), sets up a high power committee (whose constitution, term, tenure is unknown), blends civil and criminal trials (like never before), sets up a Special Court (that will supposedly follow principles of natural justice and fair play bypassing both CPC and Evidence Act), shifts burden of proof on the accused while taking away right to remain silent and gives finality to decisions of Special Court with no right to appeal. Its provisions are manifestly arbitrary and ostensibly in teeth of Article 20(1), 20(3), 21 of the Constitution. Let us examine what the Act does. Retrospective operation of the Act: Article 20(1) states that no person shall be convicted of an offence except for violation of law in force at the time of its commission. It is settled that a substantive law is presumed to be prospective in operation. The Act does not make the offence of land grabbing per se retrospective explicitly. It however does so by implication through Section 9 (1), which reads as under: “9(1) The Special Court may, either suo moto or on application made by any person, or any officer authorized by District Collector, take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit.” (emphasis supplied)Section 9(1) empowers Special Court to try even those acts and offences of land grabbing that would have occurred before commencement of the Act. Let us bear in mind that the Act is essentially a penal statute. Making it retrospective stares at Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Finding justification in treating land grabbing as a continuing wrong would not bestow validity considering the language of section 9(1). Infringing Right to Silence or just a case of a missing “not”? Article 20(3) of the Constitution guarantees right against Self-incrimination. It reads as under: “Article 20(3): No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” 180th Report of the Law Commission of India (May 2002) is on Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the right to silence. The Law Commission took up the subject suo motu in view of some developments in the UK and other countries diluting right to silence of an accused at the stage of interrogation and in criminal trial proceedings. The Commission examined the change in law in the UK, Australia, USA and China. While dealing with the Indian context, the Commission traced the history of provisions of Cr.P.C noting that Section 342A of Cr.P.C. as introduced in 1955 made it possible for the Accused to testify on his own behalf and also stated that “His failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of comment by any of the Parties or the Court”. The Commission further recorded that section 342(2) of the earlier Cr.P.C. which contained a provision that allowed the Court and the jury (if any) to draw an inference from refusal of an accused to answer questions was dropped from Cr.P.C. of 1973 obviously because of the guarantee under clause (3) of Art. 20 of the Constitution of India which came into force in 1950. The Commission noted that “The provision was dropped presumably because it was contrary to the constitutional protection against self incrimination.” The new provision of the Code of 1973 is section 315(1) which reads as under: “315. Accused person to be competent witness.— (1) Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial: Provided that— (a) he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing; (b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him that the same trial. A similar provision is found in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in section 21. As against the above mentioned provision, relevant part of Section 9(5) of the Act reads as under: “9(5): … Any person accused of land grabbing or the abetment thereof before the Special Court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charge made against him or any person charged together with him in the criminal proceeding: Provided that he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing or his failure to give evidence shall be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the special court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same proceeding. It seems to be a case of a missing “not” between the words “shall” and “be” in the proviso quoted above (the Land Grabbing Acts of AP, Assam and Karnataka suffer the same ommission). If it is so, it needs to be corrected immediatey. If it is deliberate, it is contrary to constitutional protection granted under Article 20(3) against self incrimination. The Law Commission concluded its 180th Report by stating that “On a review, we find that no changes in the law relating to the silence of the Accused are necessary and if made they will be ultra vires of Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The Special Court: The Special Court would try criminal offences as well as decide on every issue of ownership, title and possession of the land. The Special Court also has powers to pass interim directions. It goes without saying that questions of ownership, title and possession are essentially civil in nature which can be decided only by a Civil Court that follows procedure laid out in CPC and records evidence as mandated under the Evidence Act. Section 9 does away with both the above. Section 9(3) reads as under: “9(3) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Special Court may follow its own procedure which shall not be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder while deciding the Civil liability,” CPC and Cr.P.C apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as per Section 10. However, it would be too much to expect that CPC will apply with its full rigor considering that the Special Court is expected to follow only principles of natural justice and fair play. While the Special Court can decide its own procedure, it is also empowered under section 9(5) to determine the order in which the civil and criminal proceedings against a land grabber will be initiated. It is left to the discretion of the Special Court whether or not to deliver its decision or order until both Civil and Criminal proceedings are completed. The evidence admitted during criminal proceedings may be made use of while trying the civil liability, but the additional evidence, if any, adduced in the civil proceedings, shall not be considered while determining criminal liability. Relevant extract from Section 9(5) reads as under: “9 (5) The Special Court shall determine the order in which the civil and criminal liability against a land grabber be initiated. It shall be within the discretion of the Special Court whether or not to deliver its decision or order until both civil and criminal proceedings are completed. The evidence admitted during the criminal proceeding may be made use of while trying the civil liability. But additional evidence, if any, adduced in the civil proceedings shall not be considered by the Special Court while determining the criminal liability…………” Can a judge hear a case and keep the judgement pending till trial in another case is over? Would she not be influenced by what happens in the other case? If that is the purpose, why deny the parties benefit of relying on evidence adduced in the other case? Pronouncement of judgement soon after conclusion of arguments is an essence of a fair trial. Section 353 of Cr.P.C lays down that the judgement in every trial in any criminal court shall be pronounced in open court immediately after termination of the trial or at some subsequent time. CPC, Order XX, Rule 1 requires the court, after the case has been heard to pronounce judgement in open court either at once or soon thereafter as may be practicable. The issue regarding effect of delay in pronouncement of judgement on right of fair trial has been considered on many occasions by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318 deemed it appropriate to provide guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments, expecting them to be followed by all concerned inter alia providing that normally the judgment is expected within two months of the conclusion of the arguments, and on expiry of three months any of the parties can file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment; If, for any reason, no judgment is pronounced for six months, any of the parties is entitled to move an application before the then Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to re-assign the case before another Bench for fresh arguments. The appellants before the Supreme Court had referred to the judgments in Surendra Nath Sarkar v. Emperor [AIR 1942 Cal 225 : 43 Cri LJ 466 : 45 CWN 1130] , Jagarnath Singh v. Francis Kharia [AIR 1948 Pat 414 : 49 Cri LJ 704] and Sohagiya v. Ram Briksh Mahto [1961 BLJR 282] to show that only on the ground of delay in rendering the judgment for the period ranging from six months to ten months, the High Courts had held such judgments bad in law and set them aside. The Supreme Court held that “6. In Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani v. H.P.A. International [(2000) 2 SCC 13] this Court observed (at SCC p. 14, para 3) that “a long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculation in the minds of parties to a case”. This Court in various cases including Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23] , Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 98 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 40] , Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] , Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 899] , Raj Deo Sharmav. State of Bihar [(1998) 7 SCC 507 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692] , Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State of Bihar [(1999) 7 SCC 604 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1324] and Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. [(2001) 4 SCC 355 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 714] has in unambiguous terms, held “the right of speedy trial to be part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.””8. The intention of the legislature regarding pronouncement of judgments can be inferred from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of Section 353 of the Code provides that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in open court immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some subsequent time for which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. The words “some subsequent time” mentioned in Section 353 contemplate the passing of the judgment without undue delay, as delay in the pronouncement of judgment is opposed to the principle of law. Such subsequent time can at the most be stretched to a period of six weeks and not beyond that time in any case. The pronouncement of judgments in the civil case should not be permitted to go beyond two months.”The importance of promptness in delivery of judgements was reiterated recently by the Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade and Another Versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 893.Section 9(5) of the Act that allows a Judge to not deliver its judgement in a civil or criminal case until both civil and criminal or civil case proceedings are completed run counter to the right of fair and speedy trial. Rules of Evidence require an offence in a criminal trial to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas nature of proof required in a civil matter is based on preponderance of probability. Such blending of civil and criminal proceedings and the order of its conduct at the sole discretion of the Judge which will differ from case to case and judge to judge is manifestly arbitrary and also contrary to right of fair trial recognized under Article 21, more so, considering that the minimum sentence is of 10 years plus fine equivalent to jantri value (rate fixed by state for the purpose of stamp duty) of the property. As reported on 20.02.2021 by The Hindu, The High Court of Karnataka struck Section 9(4) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Act which read as “additional evidence, if any adduced in the civil proceedings shall not be considered by the Special Court while determining the criminal liability” while terming it as unconstitutional. While we await the full text of the judgement, lets hope that at least that much correction would happen in the Gujarat Act also. No Appeal !! The decision of the Special Court, on determination of question of ownership, title and lawful possession is treated as final under sec. 9(2) which reads as under: “9(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, any case in respect of an alleged act of land grabbing or the determination of question of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of any land grabbed under this Act, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be triable in the Special Court and the decision of Special Court shall be final.” There is no provision of an appeal, a revision, or a review. The only remedy available in the circumstances is that of a writ petition where the scope of interference would be narrower that that of an appeal. The Supreme Court in Dr. Kazimunnisa vs Zakia Sultana reported in (2018) 11 SCC 208, in para 35 while dealing with Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act held as under: ’35. Lastly, we find that the High Court while reversing the findings of the Special Court decided the writ petition under Article 227 like a first appellate court by appreciating the entire evidence little realising that the jurisdiction of the High Court while deciding the writ petition under Article 227 is not akin to appeal and nor can it decide the writ petition like an appellate court.’Giving finality to the findings of a special court on a question of title and ownership or lawful possession of any land sans provision of an appeal is another instance of the Act being manifestly arbitrary. Special Court can’t even rule on its jurisdiction ! Go to the State for that !! Another provision which stands out is Section 7(2), which reads as under: “7(2) Where any question arises as to the jurisdiction of any Special Court, it shall be referred to the State Government, whose decision in the matter shall be final.” In the case of Om Prakash Singh Vs M. Lingamaiah & Others reported in (2009) 12 SCC 613, the Supreme Court , in the context of AP Land Grabbing Act held in para 15 as under : “15. Ordinary disputes with regard to a title of property are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court or the Tribunal. They have to be determined in ordinary civil courts. The Special Courts and the Tribunals are not substitutes for the civil courts in the litigations involving a civil dispute relating to immovable property within the meaning of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has the exclusive jurisdiction where land grabbing is alleged or appeared from the application filed before it.”There would be many a cases where one of the parties would contend that the dispute involved is required to be tried by a Civil Court, that foundational facts which are necessary to attract jurisdiction of a Special Court are missing, that it overlaps with a pending civil or criminal case and that the Special Court does not have jurisdiction. Would in such a case also the question of jurisdiction be referred to the State Government? And who will refer it? The Special Court, who is supposed to be a former or sitting District or Sessions Judge will have to refer it to the State Government, which, working through a bureaucrat, will say that the Court has or does not have jurisdiction, which decision shall be final. Even if one were to try to justify sec. 7(2) by saying that the question to be decided by the State would be limited only to the territorial jurisdiction with respect to the area and in the context of the Notification which is issued by the State Government in terms of Section 7(1) constituting one or more Special Courts for an area or areas, it would still be beyond a State Government to rule on the territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court. Deciding jurisdiction of a Court that is deemed to be a Civil Court and a Court of Sessions is purely a judicial act which cannot be conferred on executive. Burden of Proof: With the shortcomings of the Act as mentioned above, it still puts heavy burden of proof on an accused. How would such a burden be discharged when CPC and Evidence Act are not to be followed? Shifting burden of proof in criminal laws is found in many special Acts. Here it makes inroads in civil cases also. And the Judgement of the Special Court binds all parties interested in the land, Doesn’t matter it they were not parties to the lis : The judgment of the Special Court is binding not just on parties to the lis but also to all persons interested in the land, though they may not have been before the Court. There is no provision (unlike the Assam, AP and Karnataka Acts) that requires the Special Court to cause a special notice taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary inquiry to satisfy itself about the persons likely to be interested in the land. Ah …The Committee!! An argument in support of the Act would be that sufficient safeguard is provided in the Act in as much as no information is to be recorded by a police officer without prior approval of the District Collector in consultation with the Committee notified by the Government. Sounds good. Till we look for the Committee. The act mentions committee at two places – in section 2(a) and in section 12 which are reproduced below: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “Committee” means a committee notified from time to time by the State Government under the chairmanship of District Collector for the purposes of this Act;” “12. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,- (a) no information about the commission of an offence under this Act, shall be recorded by a police officer without the prior approval of the District Collector in consultation with the Committee notified by the Government;” There is no provision whatsoever in the Act on who would be on this high power Committee, how would they be selected/ appointed/nominated – ex officio or otherwise, what would be the strength of the committee, how many members will constitute quorum, qualification of the members, their terms, tenure, secretariat, drawings of minutes of meeting and maintaining of record. It’s free for all. Take a pick. Even if the State Government frames rules, it would still be at its own sweet discretion with no guidance and limits set out in the parent Act. And it’s a committee that will set in motion or scuttle criminal investigation! The Act is also silent about what would happen when a Committee grants or refuses to grant its approval. Would the aggrieved person have to approach the Special Court requesting it to take cognizance? What would be the procedure that the Special Court would follow with respect to directing registration of FIR? While Section 9(1) authorizes a Special Court to either suo moto or on an application made by any person or any officer authorized by District Collector to take cognizance of and try every case, Section 12 does not provide for registration of an FIR on direction of the Special Court. Considering that a penal provision has to be construed strictly, harmonious reading between section 9 and 12 would be quite a challenge. When an aggrieved party decides to challenge grant or refusal of approval, she will need at least a copy of the order of the Committee. Hopefully, the collector should be handing it out. In case the collector refuses saying that she is not obliged to do so under the Act, would the aggrieved person have to pass through the labyrinth of RTI? Confusion Compounded: The FIRs that are being filed after the Act came into effect incorporate offenses under the Act as well as under IPC. This can only lead to sheer confusion. Offences under the Act can be tried only by a Special Court. Offenses under IPC cannot be tried by it. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of K. Sruti v. P.R Rajeswari and ors. 2010 (3) APLJ HC 53 held in para 15 in the context of the AP Land Grabbing Act as under: “15……….Offence under Section 420 IPC is triable by Magistrate of First Class, whereas offence under Section 447 IPC is triable by any Magistrate. But Section 9 of the Land Grabbing Act will only authorize the Special Court to exercise the powers of a Court of Session while dealing with the offences under the Land Grabbing Act, but it had no jurisdiction to try the offences under Sections 420 and 447 IPC, which are exclusively triable by Magistrate as referred to above. Therefore, we hold that taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 447 IPC by the Special Court is beyond its jurisdiction, and the impugned order dated 2.12.2009 passed by the Special Court to the extent of taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 447 IPC is liable to be set-aside.” The FIRs are however being registered in complete ignorance of the jurisdictional issues of Courts which would put litigants and the courts through harassment and confusion. The Act prescribes a very heavy sentence and imposes harsh civil liabilities. If one looks at the maximum consequences, a person found to be a land grabber under the Act would be sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years, would be liable to pay fine to the tune of Jantri value of the land, would be directed to pay compensation in terms of money, which shall not be less than the amount equivalent to the jantri value as on the date of the order and profits accrued from the land and would also be forcibly evicted of the land. When the sentence and civil consequences are so heavy, the trial, right from the time of registration of an FIR to deciding on issues of jurisdiction and evidence to pronouncement of judgement is required to be conducted in accordance with set principles of law which does not seem to be the case here. It will be years before a challenge to vires of the Act, if any, results in finality, before there are binding decisions on the issues raised here and on the issues that will surface as the Act is played out. What would happen till then?Views are personal.(Author is a Practicing Lawyer at the Gujarat High Court)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

first_imgKatherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images(ELLICOT, CITY, Md.) —  A National Guardsman is missing after devastating flash flooding swept through Ellicott City, Maryland, turning streets into rivers and carrying away cars.The missing man, 39-year-old Eddison Hermond of Severn, Maryland, was last seen at about 5:20 p.m. Sunday, Howard County police said.Hermond, a member of the Maryland National Guard, was at an Ellicott City restaurant with his friend from the Air Force, Joseph Lopez, when they noticed the parking lot starting to flood because of the heavy rain, Lopez told ABC News.“It happened so fast,” Lopez said. “The main street became a river in less than 20 minutes.”The friends were helping to block the restaurant doors to prevent flooding when one woman with a cat carrier wanted to leave, Lopez said.Eddison was helping her when he lost his balance and was swept away into a man-made river and then under a bridge, Lopez said.Eddison, who was wearing a white T-shirt and black shorts, hasn’t been seen since, Lopez said.“Eddison is a great swimmer so I’m hopeful that he will be OK,” Lopez said.The governor of Maryland declared a state of emergency in the wake of the flash flooding in the historic mill town and other areas Sunday. Ellicott City saw 8.4 inches of rain in just a few hours. Nearby Catonsville, Maryland, saw over 10 inches of rain.Howard County County Executive Allan Kittleman this morning called the flooding worse than the one that hit Ellicott City in 2016, killing two people and causing millions of dollars of damage.“My heart’s broken when I walk through the town and see it,” Kittleman told “Good Morning America.” “All I’m thinking about is the folks whose lives have been devastated for a second time in two years.”There were about 30 water rescues and about 250 to 300 people were helped out of buildings amid the flash flooding, officials said.Cheryl Nitz came to Ellicott City for a trip with her family Sunday when “it started raining … and all of a sudden it just started raining harder and harder,” she told ABC News. “Then we noticed the water was coming up over the curbs. Then all of a sudden the water was actually running down the middle of the street.”Nitz and her family raced up to higher ground to their car.“We were able to get the car out of the parking spot and we moved toward Main Street,” she said, but “there were other cars stuck in the way. We couldn’t move.”The water rose so rapidly that her family had to be rescued from their car, she added.“It rose so quickly probably within 5 or 10 minutes it just started to kind of cover the road… it was rushing,” she said. “It was unbelievable.”Andrew Kolozsvary of New Hampshire was also visiting Ellicott City, enjoying a Sunday drive, when it started “raining pretty hard, so we decided to park the truck in front of the county welcome center,” he told ABC News. “The water came and it came fast.”While in the truck, the quickly rising water was “inching the car along,” he said.After his rescue, the truck ended up washed down the street.“I was glad to get out of it,” he said. “The second deluge was the really bad one — that took the truck.”Amber Twait was in Ellicott City as a band member for her friend’s wedding Sunday when the venue flooded.The couple ended up getting married at a nearby Mexican restaurant that was on higher ground, she told ABC News.Eventually, Twait added, the restaurant started to flood as well, but not before they finished the ceremony.“Obviously not ideal, but they were still able to say they’re married at the end of the day,” she said.“It was a little scary, just because the lights were flickering but it was just really sweet and they both had such a good attitude about it,” Twait added. “Hell or high water, they still were going to get married.”Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.last_img read more

first_imgBen185/iStockBy IVAN PEREIRA, ABC News(NEW YORK) — A 1-year-old boy was shot and killed and three adults were wounded at a cookout in Brooklyn Sunday night, capping a day of shootings in the city, according to the police.Around 11:30 p.m., officers responded to a 911 call of shots fired outside the Raymond Bush Playground in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood and found multiple victims, according to a police spokeswoman. Davell Gardner Jr., 1, was shot in the abdomen, transported to Interfaith Medical Center by private means and then rushed to Maimonides Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead, according to the NYPD.A 36-year-old man who was shot in the leg was transported to the hospital and is in stable condition, police said. A 35-year-old man who suffered a gunshot wound to his groin was driven to the hospital privately and was in an unknown condition, according to the police spokeswoman.Police said another victim, a 27-year-old male, walked into a Brooklyn hospital with a gunshot wound to one of his ankles, but his condition was unknown.Police said two men dressed in all black opened fire at the group having the cookout and fled into the park in an SUV. There were no words exchanged or dispute before the shots were fired, police said.The investigation is ongoing and there were no arrests as of Monday morning, according to the police.The playground shooting was part of a violent Sunday in the city. There were 11 shooting incidents, with 16 people shot in total.One of the shootings involved a 12-year-old boy who was wounded in the leg while sitting on his stoop in Brooklyn, according to the police. Davell was the only victim who was killed.Shooting incidents in New York have risen from 84 to 223 over the last four weeks, a jump of 165.5%, according to the latest police data from the NYPD that was released last week. The number of shooting victims has increased from 100 to 304 during the same period, a jump of 204%, according to the NYPD data.Shooting incidents in the Brooklyn precinct where Davell was killed went up from two to seven and the number of shooting victims went up from two to nine over the 28-day period, according to the NYPD data.Shootings in other cities, such as Chicago and Philadelphia, have been on the rise over the last few weeks.New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was visibly shaken during his daily news conference Monday morning when he spoke about Davell’s death. The mayor condemned the violence and said all New Yorkers need to work together to curb shootings.“It’s never just about police. It has to be about police and community together,” he said. “We have to always remember the good people fighting back.”New York City’s Council approved its budget and removed a billion dollars from the NYPD’s budget in response to calls for police reform nearly two weeks ago. De Blasio said the budget change was a good move and attributed the rise in violence to a “perfect storm” of rising unemployment, the tension between the community and police, a criminal justice system that has not been functioning due to the pandemic and other factors.“We’ve seen us fight back from much much tougher circumstances, but it’s going to take a lot for this one,” he said.Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.last_img read more

first_img Previous Article Next Article MSF warns law firms against advisingOn 13 Jun 2000 in Personnel Today It was the first note of union discord in a process apparently characterised by total harmony.As the long-awaited legislation on statutory union recognition came into force last week, the MSF union attacked employment lawyers Eversheds.MSF head of health Roger Kline demanded to know if there were any circumstances under which Eversheds would advise NHS employers on “undermining” a trade union.In a letter to Eversheds senior partner Martin Warren, Kline also asked for details of contracts to provide NHS employers with anything other than advice on specific contractual or risk issues.He added, “If MSF discovers that Eversheds provided any advice to NHS Trusts on de-recognising trade unions or marginalising their role, we will not hesitate to call for a UK-wide NHS boycott on the grounds that they are undermining the human resources strategies of the NHS.”But Warren described the issue as “academic”. He said, “I have never been asked to give this sort of advice to an NHS Trust and I think it is highly unlikely I would be asked to do so. The sector is totally unionised.” Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos.last_img read more