231 Front Street, Lahaina, HI 96761 [email protected] 808.123.4567

B.O.C. Gases Plc (BOCGAS.ng) HY2014 Interim Report

first_imgB.O.C. Gases Plc (BOCGAS.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Energy sector has released it’s 2014 interim results for the half year.For more information about B.O.C. Gases Plc (BOCGAS.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the B.O.C. Gases Plc (BOCGAS.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: B.O.C. Gases Plc (BOCGAS.ng)  2014 interim results for the half year.Company ProfileBOC Gases Nigeria Plc manufactures and distributes gases for the industrial and medical sectors in Nigeria including argon, nitrogen carbon dioxide and oxygen. The company also manufactures and distributes welding products and sells a range of medical equipment. Established in 1959 and formerly known as Industrial Gases Plc, the company changed its name to BOC Gases Nigeria Plc in 1997. In 2006, The Linde Group AG acquired a 60% stake in the business with the balance held by Nigerian shareholders. As part of The Linde Group, BOC Gases Nigeria has access to the largest industrial gases and welding products enterprise in Africa namely African Oxygen Plc (Afrox). The company’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. BOC Gases Nigeria Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchangelast_img read more

Mauritius Oil Refineries Limited (MOR.mu) HY2020 Interim Report

first_imgMauritius Oil Refineries Limited (MOR.mu) listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius under the Food sector has released it’s 2020 interim results for the half year.For more information about Mauritius Oil Refineries Limited (MOR.mu) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Mauritius Oil Refineries Limited (MOR.mu) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Mauritius Oil Refineries Limited (MOR.mu)  2020 interim results for the half year.Company ProfileMauritius Oil Refineries Limited deals in the production and distribution of edible crude oils, which includes the refinery, packaging and marketing of the finished products. The company also engages in the manufacturing of metal cans and plastic containers. Moroil operates through its subsidiaries, wholly owned Proton Limited, engaged in the rental services; Metal Can Manufacturers Limited, a metal containers manufacturer, in which it holds a 50.11% stake, as well as Pharmalab Plastic Supplies Limited, a plastic bottles manufacturer, in which the Company holds a 51.22% stake. The company has divided its activities into segments, which include oil products, metal cans and plastic containers, imported food products, and others. Mauritius Oil Refineries Limited is listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius.last_img read more

3 FTSE 250 property stocks I’d buy today

first_img3 FTSE 250 property stocks I’d buy today 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. Britain’s property market is abuzz with activity. According to online real estate marketplace and FTSE 100 company Rightmove, the average house price is up by over 6% in November this year compared to last year. The number of sales in October was up a whole 50% from last year.The stamp duty holiday up to March had already propped up the sector, which was impacted severely by the first lockdown. A rush to complete house deals before the deadline has also increased housing market activity.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…I reckon that with Covid-19 vaccines expected to be available soon, it will continue to remain robust, positively impacting both FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 stocks. The only challenge I see to property markets moving forward is Brexit. The chances of a no-deal Brexit are higher than before. This can result in some uncertainty about what happens next in property markets. But on the whole, the prospects for real estate look brighter than not.FTSE 100 real estate giants like Barratt Developments, Berkeley Group Holdings, Persimmon, and Taylor Wimpey have seen sharp improvements in stock market performance recently. Their improved dividend situation is also heartening. I reckon they will continue to strengthen their positions. FTSE 250 property stocks are on the roll too. Here are three with good prospects.#1 Derwent London’s prospects have improvedThe first is Derwent London, the real estate investment trust which just got upgraded by JP Morgan. It recently reported improved rent collection and also increased its interim dividend a few months ago. When I had last written about it, it wasn’t an immediate buy for me, but it was on my investing radar. Now, I think there’s far less risk to buying the stock and the upside has improved significantly. #2. Marshall’s a high-performing FTSE 250 stockThe FTSE 250 landscaper Marshalls is another stock I like. I had bought it when the broader stock markets were still uncertain, and it has given me double-digit returns already. I’d be tempted to sell it and make a neat profit if I wasn’t convinced that it’s share price can rise far more. Its sales are back to where they were in 2019, and it has also improved its outlook for 2021. Interestingly, it has also repaid money received under the government’s furlough scheme. This, in particular, sets its performance apart during a bad year. #3. Bellway’s dividend game is strongI also like the FTSE 250 home-builder Bellway, which recently started paying dividends again after its order book leapt 43%. Its dividend yield at 4.8% isn’t something to ignore either, especially at a time when dividends are still muted. Its financials have taken a hit, but it appears confident of performance improvements in the future. Much like other stocks, its share price has run up in November’s stock market rally. It has seen an over 30% rise in the month, up to now. I reckon it will continue to rise. 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. “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Manika Premsingh owns shares of Marshalls and Rightmove. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Rightmove. 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 Manika Premsingh | Wednesday, 25th November, 2020 Enter Your Email Address Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. See all posts by Manika Premsingh 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. Image source: Getty Images last_img read more

Residential Bridge Competition Entry / Rasha Kiani + Mahdi Kam…

first_imgShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/366444/residential-bridge-competition-entry-rasha-kiani-mahdi-kamboozia Clipboard Save this picture!Courtesy of Rasha Kiani + Mahdi KambooziaWritten by Alison Furuto Share “COPY” Residential Bridge Competition Entry / Rasha Kiani + Mahdi Kamboozia CopyWith the challenge of defining a new residential typology on the outskirt of a historic Prague zone that combines a pathway to cross the river and residential units over the Vltava River, Rasha Kiani and Mahdi Kamboozia proposed a new extension to Prague’s urban space. Their concept, which won an honorable mention, makes a lively and vibrant community that joins both sides of the Vltava River by means of social activities in a dynamic space. More images and architects’ description after the break.Save this picture!Courtesy of Rasha Kiani + Mahdi KambooziaPreparing the context for the people and interactions to take place, from small scales and personal activities to large scales and social events that bring neighborhood potentials to life and enabling wide ranges of experiences from tangible ones to some intangible and extraordinary involvement in the surroundings and consequently enhances the quality of life in the neighborhood community. Save this picture!Courtesy of Rasha Kiani + Mahdi KambooziaRethinking on how residential formal typology as separated units and urban spaces can merge, cause to a combination of bridge pathways and residential spaces in a way that represents sequences of people life and social events, this organization of spaces links the river banks in a flexible way that maximize the quality of space by emerging interactions and possibilities of everyday life in the context of Prague. Searching on the way that residence experience can benefit from urban events and social activities led to a dynamic morph between different levels of privacy and public by the mean of access alternatives, view corridors and urban space extensions.Save this picture!Courtesy of Rasha Kiani + Mahdi KambooziaIn the formal aspect of design, the bridge, redefined as an extension of urban surface that merges the city from both sides of the Vltava river, instead of linear connection between two point, and created a double circular loop bridge that spatially twists and morphs between city/public and home/private. Save this picture!plan 01By concerning historical context and height limitation of the site, instead of typically arrange residential units in vertical high-rise typology like a tower, it is bent over the river and units oriented in low-rise horizontal organization that facing to the central urban plaza Project gallerySee allShow lessCentral Mosque of Pristina Competition Entry / Tarh O AmayeshUnbuilt Project70 Homes in Landy Sud / PETITDIDIERPRIOUX ArchitectsSelected Projects Share CopyAbout this officeRasha KianiOfficeFollowMahdi KambooziaOfficeFollow#TagsProjectsUnbuilt ProjectInfrastructureBridgesPedestrian bridgeResidential ArchitecturePragueInfrastructureResidentialCzech RepublicPublished on May 01, 2013Cite: Alison Furuto. “Residential Bridge Competition Entry / Rasha Kiani + Mahdi Kamboozia” 01 May 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Browse the CatalogMetal PanelsAurubisCopper Alloy: Nordic RoyalGlassMitrexSolar GreenhouseLouvers / ShuttersTechnowoodSunshade SystemsFiber Cements / CementsRieder GroupFacade Panel – Terrazzo BlackStonesCosentinoSurfaces – Silestone® Basiq SeriesIn architectureSikaBuilding Envelope SystemsWoodLunawoodInterior ThermowoodWindowsswissFineLineSliding Windows – EvenMineral / Organic PaintsKEIMBlack Concrete – Concretal®-BlackSuspension SystemsMetawellAluminum Panels for Ceiling SailsDoorsECLISSESliding Door Opening System – ECLISSE Push&PullStonesMarini MarmiNatural Stone – Nuvolato di GréMore products »Save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 Projects ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/366444/residential-bridge-competition-entry-rasha-kiani-mahdi-kamboozia Clipboard “COPY” Pedestrian Bridge ArchDaily Czech Republic Residential Bridge Competition Entry / Rasha Kiani + Mahdi KambooziaSave this projectSaveResidential Bridge Competition Entry / Rasha Kiani + Mahdi Kamboozialast_img read more

#Watch Maser gives old Limerick Fire Station some TLC

first_imgFacebook Renowned Irish street artist Maser has collaborated with Team Limerick Clean Up to give the disused section of the old Limerick Fire Station on Thomas Street a new lease of life.The building, in the heart of the city, has received a face-lift in the Irish artist’s style to celebrate the success of Team Limerick Clean-up 4, which took place on Good Friday this year and saw a record 18,500 volunteers take to the streets for Europe’s biggest one day clean up.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Speaking to the Limerick Post about the project, Maser said he was invited by Team Limerick Cleanup to work on the project, “They proposed the project for me, I was aware of what’s been happening the last few years. I’m very familiar with Limerick, I’ve been down here quite a lot, I’ve done a few murals already around the city.“This project aligned with my work as well, so I thought it was a good opportunity to come down and paint another piece.”Since starting out on the walls of his neighbourhood in the 1990s, Maser has grown to become one of Ireland’s best-known street artists. He has worked with leading names in this country including U2, Damien Dempsey and Brown Thomas, and around the globe, with a number of projects having been completed in the USA and across Europe. His work is frequently seen on the streets of our cities, adding a dash of colour to our daily lives.“We brought Maser down here, I suppose it’s a thank you to the 18,500 people who took part in TLC this year,” Paul O’Connell, Team Limerick Clean-up ambassador told the Limerick Post, adding, “It’s a reminder for next year, and maybe a reminder that the TLC ethos doesn’t apply just to Good Friday, it applies to the whole year round.”Read more local news here. LSAD, LIT Sculpture graduates achieve Limerick City Gallery of Art & National Sculpture Factory awards TAGSartArtistMasermuralOld Fire StationStreetartTeam Limerick CleanupThomas StreetTLC Advertisement WhatsApp Call out for Limerick artists to apply for Tyrone Guthrie Bursary 2020 NewsLocal NewsVideo#Watch Maser gives old Limerick Fire Station some TLCBy Cian Reinhardt – May 19, 2018 1561 Artists’ Apartments and Studio available in Limerick City Centre Limerick City Gallery of Art exhibition showcases ‘Limerick Connections’ through artists over the past 50 years center_img Linkedin Previous articleKevin Barry’s dark laugh at end of lifeNext articleBruff man, Jason Hayes returns from Lebanon to help Pieta House Cian Reinhardthttp://www.limerickpost.ieJournalist & Digital Media Coordinator. Covering human interest and social issues as well as creating digital content to accompany news stories. [email protected] Print RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Limerick Connections exhibition at Limerick City Gallery of Art Email Twitter Age & Opportunity running a children’s art competitionlast_img read more

Speaker Versus Court: The Tussle For Jurisdiction Under The Tenth Schedule

first_imgColumnsSpeaker Versus Court: The Tussle For Jurisdiction Under The Tenth Schedule Javedur Rahman23 Aug 2020 7:25 AMShare This – xThe political uncertainty in the State of Rajasthan may have been diffused with the incumbent Congress government managing to get its flock together and winning the floor test. The facts, briefly stated, are that disqualification petitions against 19 MLAs were filed before the Speaker who issued notices to them under the Tenth Schedule. This was challenged by the MLAs before the High…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 political uncertainty in the State of Rajasthan may have been diffused with the incumbent Congress government managing to get its flock together and winning the floor test. The facts, briefly stated, are that disqualification petitions against 19 MLAs were filed before the Speaker who issued notices to them under the Tenth Schedule. This was challenged by the MLAs before the High Court in a writ petition also challenging the constitutional validity of Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule itself. The High Court proceeded to uphold the maintainability of the said challenges and directed the Speaker to maintain status quo till the culmination of Court proceedings. Thereafter, a fresh set of writ petitions were filed by the BJP and BSP challenging the merger of 6 erstwhile BSP legislators with the Congress party, which merger happened almost a year ago in September, 2019, and seeking their disqualification. The proceedings before the High Court, as noted above, give rise to some very crucial and interesting questions of Constitutional interpretation surrounding not only the scheme of the Tenth Schedule in respect of the Speaker’s jurisdiction and the restraint required to be exercised by Constitutional Courts but also in respect of the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 to adjudicate the validity of constitutional provisions; which issues are sought to be dealt with presently. High Courts cannot claim jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional validity of Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule A Constitution Bench comprising of 5 Judges of the Supreme Court way back in the year 1992[1] has exhaustively dealt with and repelled the basic structure challenge to Para 2(1)(a), dismissing it as unsound in view of “the immorality and unprincipled chameleon like changes of political hues in pursuit of power and pelf”.[2] The Constitution Bench leaned in favor of legislative wisdom to conclude that Para 2(1)(a) does not subvert democratic rights of MPs/MLAs nor does it violate their freedom of speech, vote or conscience.[3] Conversely, it held that the provisions of Para 2(1)(a) are salutary and intended to strengthen the fabric of the Indian Parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical political defections.[4] The raising of this very challenge once again by the 19 MLAs was nothing but flogging a dead horse. The law laid down in Kihoto Hollohan being binding under Article 141 has been consistently followed by various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court for over 28 years now. Judicial discipline and constitutional hierarchy necessitates that until and unless a bench of more than 5 judges overturn the law laid down in Kihoto Hollohan, the same is to be followed as a binding precedent. This means that even Supreme Court benches comprising of two, three or even five judges are bound by the dictum of Kihoto Hollohan.[5] Assuming that in the future another Constitution Bench of 5 judges doubts the correctness of Kihoto Hollohan, it still cannot differ with it as it is bound to follow it. It can at best refer the matter for consideration by a larger bench of 7 judges, which alone will have the power and jurisdiction to overturn the law laid down in Kihoto Hollohan, if at all the need arises. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court consisting of 2 Judges was merely required to apply the law laid down in Kihoto Hollohan.[6] It ought not to have, by any stretch of judicial incantation, re-opened a challenge which 5 judges of the Supreme Court have long rejected. Interestingly, the High Court’s decision to hold the writ petition as maintainable to decide on the validity of para 2(1)(a), itself deviates from the practice and procedure established in Kihoto Hollohan. The judgment in Kihoto Hollohan was pronounced on two dates i.e. 12.11.1991 as well as 18.02.1992. The Supreme Court pronounced its findings and conclusions upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment and of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule on the first date and on the second date the reasons for the conclusions were pronounced. While pronouncing the first order on 12.11.1991,[7] the Supreme Court allowed a Transfer Petition withdrawing a writ petition, challenging the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, from before the High Court of Guwahati to itself “for the purpose of deciding the constitutional issues and of declaring the law on the matter.” The Supreme Court thus made it clear that the determination of the validity of the Tenth Schedule could only be done by it. This direction read in conjunction with the emphatic pronouncement of Justice Rohinton Nariman in the 9 Judge Bench ‘Right to Privacy’ case that “when a substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises, it is this Court and this Court alone under Article 145(3) that is to decide what the interpretation of the Constitution shall be, and for this purpose the Constitution entrusts this task to a minimum of five Judges of this Court”,[8] leaves no room for doubt that any challenge to the provisions of the Tenth Schedule or for that matter to any constitutional provision has to be before a Constitution Bench comprising of a minimum of 5 judges. High Court could not have directed ‘status quo’ to be maintained, by usurping the exclusive domain of the Speaker While examining the scope and extent of judicial review of the Courts, the Constitution Bench in Kihoto Hollohan held that though the jurisdiction of courts under Articles 136, 226 and 227 is not completely taken away in view of the finality clause in Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule, the scope of judicial review does get limited and excluded in respect of an act committed by the Speaker within his jurisdiction. In other words, if the Speaker has acted in the exercise of and within the confines of his jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule, Constitutional Courts will not interfere with it in exercise of their powers of judicial review. It was made absolutely clear that judicial review is not available at a stage prior to the final decision of the Speaker in the form of any quia timet relief at an interlocutory stage.[9] This very issue relating to the jurisdiction of a High Court to pass interim orders during the pendency of disqualification proceedings has already been settled by the Supreme Court in Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi.[10] It was held in that case that in view of the constitutional scheme of the Tenth Schedule “normally judicial review could not cover any stage prior to the making of the decision by the Speaker or the Chairman of the House, nor was any quia timet action contemplated or permissible.”[11] It was further held that “restraining the Speaker from taking any decision under Para 6 of Schedule X is, in our view, beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court, since the Constitution itself has vested the Speaker with the power to take a decision under Para 6 and care has also been taken to indicate that such decision of the Speaker would be final. It is only thereafter that the High Court assumes jurisdiction to examine the Speaker’s order.”[12] Earlier this year, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly,[13] also held that the finality clause in paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule protects “the exclusive jurisdiction that vests in the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions so that nothing should come in the way of deciding such petitions.”[14] It was observed that while the exclusivity of the Speaker’s jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule does not prevent the Courts from passing interim directions to facilitate the Speaker arriving at a prompt decision as to disqualification, no direction/order could be passed preventing/interdicting the Speaker from concluding the Tenth Schedule proceedings.[15] The exclusive forum for adjudicating the validity of a ‘merger’ is the Speaker in a proceeding under the Tenth Schedule, which Forum cannot be bypassed in Writ Proceedings The Tenth Schedule gets invoked only when a disqualification petition is filed before the Speaker under Para 6(1), seeking to disqualify a legislator under Para 2(1).[16] Para 4 provides for merger as a defense/shield to a legislator against whom the disqualification proceedings have been initiated.[17] Para 4(1) provides for the merger of the ‘original political party’ of a member with ‘another political party’ itself so as to prevent a member from being disqualified under Para 2(1). Para 4(2), on the other hand, operates in a completely different field since it provides for a ‘deemed’ merger as opposed to an ‘actual’ merger provided for in Para 4(1). This deeming fiction of merger sets in when at least ‘two thirds’ of the members of the legislature party agree to merge with another political party. The adjudication of the validity of ‘merger’, which could only be raised as a defence, cannot be divorced from disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule before the Speaker and dealt with in isolation by the High Court or for that matter even by the Speaker, in the absence of adjudicating the question of disqualification under Para 6(1). This position is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court has held that “Independent of a claim that someone has to be disqualified, the scheme of the Tenth Schedule or the rules made thereunder, do not contemplate the Speaker embarking upon an independent enquiry as to whether there has been a split in a political party or there has been a merger.”[18] The observations in Rajendra Singh Rana have been reiterated and followed subsequently in Kuldip Bishnoi to hold that the determination of the question of merger “could not be divorced from the motion before the Speaker seeking a disqualification of the Member or Members concerned under Para 6 of Schedule X.”[19] In so far as the jurisdiction of the High Court to look into the validity of merger was concerned, it was held that it is “..only after a final decision is rendered by the Speaker under Para 6 of Schedule X to the Constitution that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked.”[20] As far as the question of ‘recognition’ of merger by the Speaker is concerned, he has absolutely no discretion but to recognize the same as and when a claim is made before him. At this stage, the Speaker has no power or discretion to adjudicate the validity of the merger, nor is he required to do so. The independent power of the Speaker to recognize a merger been acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana.[21] In fact, such recognition of merger, prior to and independent of disqualification proceedings, has been very recently noted with approval by the Supreme Court in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly.[22] Another aspect is the protection afforded by Article 212 to the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, by deeming the latter to be proceedings inside the House. This protection, in my view, ought to be applicable with even greater vigor to the Speaker’s recognition of a merger within the House. This is so because as opposed to the ‘adjudication’ of a merger by the Speaker in his role as the ‘Tribunal’ under the Tenth Schedule, the ‘recognition’ of a merger within the legislature is done by the ‘Speaker’ in his quintessential role as the ‘Master of the House’. CONCLUSION The Division Bench’s order of ‘status quo’, interdicting the Tenth Schedule proceedings before the Speaker against the 19 Congress MLAs; the Governor’s belated summoning of the Assembly; as well as the non interference by the Single Judge in the status of the 6 erstwhile BSP legislators who had merged with the Congress since 18.09.2019; may have come as a blessing in disguise for the Rajasthan Congress to restore stability within the party and demonstrate enough strength to continue governing the State. The entire episode however, as it unfolded before the Division Bench, seems to have unsettled what has long been settled in respect of constitutional adjudication by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule. This inviolable and independent dispensation of the Speaker’s functions as a Constitutional Tribunal, has always restrained the Courts from exercising their powers of judicial review till the Tenth Schedule proceedings culminated in the passing of a final judgment by him. It must also not be forgotten that Kihoto Hollohan further curtailed and limited the exercise of judicial review of the final decision of the Speaker to extremely limited circumstances, apart from categorically ruling out any quia timet action which could thwart the proceedings before the Speaker. While the shifting sands of politics are difficult to comprehend, it is all the more necessary that the approach of the Constitutional Courts, rooted in precedents and judicial discipline, be such, that no legal uncertainty is created especially when the law is already well settled. The political developments as happened in Rajasthan are not the first nor will they be the last. In the last six years, the ‘constitutional sin of defection’ has been used as a tool to topple democratically elected governments which are politically opposed to the ideology of the BJP-led central government. This has already happened in the states of Arunachal Pradesh (2015/2016), Uttarakhand (2016), Goa (2017), Karnataka (2019) as well as Madhya Pradesh (2020), apart from an unsuccessful attempts made in Maharashtra (2019) as well as presently in Rajasthan (2020). If not reined in by the Courts, ‘democratic coups’ engineered by the ‘constitutional sin of defections’ would corrode the democratic structure of our country which rests on the pedestal of political parties with varying ideologies being afforded a fair chance to participate in the governance of our country.Views are personal only (Javedur Rahman is an Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court of India. He graduated from the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, in the year 2013) [1] Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 651 [2] ibid at para 38 [3] ibid at para 49 [4] ibid at para 53 [5] Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 2 SCC 673 [6] Nutan Kumar v. IInd ADJ, (2002) 8 SCC 31 at para 7 [7] Kihota Hollohon v. Zachilhu, (1992) 1 SCC 309 [8] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 at para 502 [9] Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 at para 110 [10] (2015) 12 SCC 381 [11] ibid at para 39 [12] ibid at para 44 [13] (2020) SCC OnLine SC 55 [14] ibid at para 23 [15] ibid at para 29 [16] Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270 at para 25 [17] ibid at para 27 [18] ibid at para 26 [19] (2015) 12 SCC 381 at para 43 [20] ibid [21] (2007) 4 SCC 270 at para 28 [22] (2020) 2 SCC 595 at paras 186 – 188 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

LUH restrictions remain in place as national flu figures surpass 2018

first_img Google+ Half of patients attending emergency departments around the country are turning up with the flu.The number of cases has already overtaken last year’s peak – with 18 deaths reported so far this winter.Visiting restrictions imposed at LUH earlier this month are still in effect, with persons asked not to visit, except by prior arrangements with ward managersFlu season is expected to last for another month, and people are being encouraged to stay at home unless they need treatment.The HSE’s Dr Vida Hamilton has been outlining when treatment may be necessary………….Audio Playerhttp://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/14hamilton.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. By News Highland – December 27, 2019 Homepage BannerNews Twitter Google+ LUH restrictions remain in place as national flu figures surpass 2018 WhatsApp DL Debate – 24/05/21 Facebook RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Twittercenter_img Facebook Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic WhatsApp News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Previous article2019 sets new record for number of Irish passports issuedNext articleDaryl Gurney dumped out of World Championship News Highland Pinterest Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Pinterest Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programmelast_img read more

Amol Sarva regrets getting into bed with “consummate Wall Street type” Howard Lutnick

first_imgAmol Sarva and Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick (Sarva via Sasha Maslov, Lutnick via Getty)Amol Sarva has shared new details about how Knotel’s partnership with Newmark turned hostile.In a video interview, Sarva said Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick, whom he holds in low regard, pulled the strings that forced his company into bankruptcy.“It was just like [a] consummate Wall Street type,” Sarva said in a 12-minute interview with Business of Business posted Thursday.Newmark was the stalking-horse bidder in Knotel’s bankruptcy and purchased the company in March. Sarva had reportedly raised more money as recently as January, but could not come up with a way to retain control of the company.In Sarva’s telling of the story, Lutnick’s firm used its relationship with Newmark to gain inside information on Knotel and force the ailing flex-office company into bankruptcy.Sarva never identifies Lutnick or Newmark CEO Barry Gosin — who he said is an “amazing guy, really nice, great reputation” — by name, but he references their positions and how they played roles in his eventual ouster.About a year after Gosin and Newmark invested in Knotel, the CEO approached Sarva about hiring Cantor Fitzgerald as the company’s investment bank, according to the startup founder. Then the pandemic hit, and Knotel’s business struggled. Last December, Sarva turned to two of his lenders to refinance Knotel’s debts. That’s when he learned that Lutnick had purchased the debt.From that point on, Sarva said, Gosin was “nowhere to be seen” and he was dealing exclusively with Lutnick.Sarva said the Cantor CEO gave him an ultimatum: Take another $20 million loan on the condition that he put the company into bankruptcy and let Newmark buy it, or Lutnick would foreclose on the debt.“These guys basically chose this moment to put almost another $100 million total in, just in order to buy the company and wipe out everybody else,” Sarva explained.Representatives for Lutnick and Gosin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Despite his dim view of Lutnick and how Newmark handled the situation, Sarva didn’t completely dismiss his responsibility for losing control of Knotel, which was once valued at $1 billion.He said he could have done a better job doing due diligence on Newmark and Lutnick, who infamously cut off paychecks to the families of Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died in the 9/11 attacks.“The real estate business is full of all these shady people and they are very outspoken about each other,” Sarva said. “It was just a question away.”Sarva also acknowledged that Lutnick might have kept him around if the Cantor CEO had more confidence in his ability to fix Knotel.“Arguably it’s all within their rights and it’s capitalism and it’s a dog-eat-dog world, and whatever, but you can choose. There are rules and you can also choose how you want to behave in life,” he said. “Knotel is in someone else’s control today because of that bad decision by me.”Contact Rich Bockmann Share via Shortlink cantor fitzgeraldCo-workingKnotelNewmark Message* Email Address*center_img Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Tags Full Name*last_img read more

Pearl Jam Seattle Museum Of Culture Exhibit Features Jeff Ament-Commissioned Andrew Wood Sculpture [Video]

first_imgThe permanent home of Andrew Wood’s statue is still undetermined at this point, but Ament hinted at the work of art staying in the Seattle area, noting to Rolling Stone, “There are a lot of things that would be different not just for me, but for the entire Seattle musical community, had it not been for him”. This Saturday, iconic 90’s rock act, Pearl Jam, will open their new art exhibit, Pearl Jam: Home and Away, at Seattle’s Museum of Pop Culture coinciding with the band’s brief U.S. run of “Home” and “Away” stadium shows, which began on Wednesday night with their first of two “Home” performances at the Seattle Mariners‘ Safeco Field. A central piece of the exhibit is a brand-new bronze statue of Andrew Wood, the late Seattle vocalist whose tragic death in 1990 set in motion a chain of events that made Pearl Jam what it is today.Andrew Wood became a fixture of Seattle’s rising alternative scene in the late 80’s with Malfunkshun and, later, Mother Love Bone. By the end of the decade, Mother Love Bone had developed a loyal following in the Pacific Northwest and was set to release their debut studio album, Apple, in March of 1990–the step that would surely be the band’s breakthrough moment. However, just days before Apple‘s original scheduled release, Andrew Wood was found in a coma, the result of a heroin overdose. He was rushed to the hospital unresponsive, where he died three days later, on March 19th, 1990.Andrew Wood was roommates with the late Soundgarden frontman, Chris Cornell at the time, and Cornell was inspired to record a tribute to his fallen musical brother. He recruited his Soundgarden bandmate Matt Cameron and former Mother Love Bone members Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament, who in turn recruited guitarist Mike McCready, with whom they were preparing to start a new band, tentatively named Mookie Blaylock.At the time of the 15-day-long sessions for Temple of the Dog, Ament, Gossard, and McCready were in the process of finding a vocalist for their new group. A young singer named Eddie Vedder had flown up to Seattle from San Diego to audition and ended up adding some backing vocals to a few tracks. Cornell liked the sound of this shy newcomer’s voice, and his passionate track “Hunger Strike” was eventually recorded as a vocal duet between him and Vedder for the album. Following the Temple of the Dog sessions, Cornell and Cameron went back into the studio to record their third (and arguably their best) studio album, Badmotorfinger (1991). Gossard, Ament, McCready, Vedder, and drummer Dave Krusen decided to rename their new band “Pearl Jam,” recorded their debut LP, Ten (1991), and went on to become one of the biggest rock acts of their generation. Cameron would also join Pearl Jam following Soundgarden’s breakup in 1998.The new Andrew Wood statue was commisioned by Wood’s former bandmate and Pearl Jam bassist Jeff Ament. In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Ament explained the idea came to him five years ago when he visited Wood’s gravesite, saying, “I was just like, ‘God, this should be so much more rad. So the whole way home we were riffing, ‘If anybody I know deserves a statue, it’s him.’ He would be the one that would love it.” Ament called on master sculptor Mark Walker, who carved out the monumental statue for his late friend. Below, you can watch a local Seattle news report about Pearl Jam’s new Home and Away art exhibit, which features an interview with the sculpture visionary, Jeff Ament.[Video: KING 5 News][H/T Consequence of Sound]last_img read more

Alan Erickson, longtime Cabot librarian, dies at 88

first_imgAlan Eric Erickson, longtime librarian of the Godfrey Lowell Cabot Science Library at Harvard College, died March 23 following a brief illness; he was 88.Erickson, who was born in Boston on Feb. 6, 1928, earned a bachelor’s degree in biology from Middlebury College in 1949. He then enlisted in the U.S. Air Force as a laboratory specialist. After his active military service, Erickson began studying embryology at Boston University. He completed his Ph.D. in biology in 1960 before joining the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology as a research scientist. He later earned a master’s degree in library science from Simmons College.Erickson was hired as associate librarian of Harvard College in 1966. As science specialist for the Harvard University Libraries, he was instrumental in the planning and construction of the Cabot Library. His position as librarian of the Cabot Library and as a member of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences lasted until 1991 and was marked by his collaborative leadership, integrity, insight, and fairness.During his tenure at Cabot Library, he always celebrated the first day of spring by placing daffodils on every table of the library.He remained active after retirement as a member and officer of the Harvard University Retiree Association (HURA). A highlight of his professional career was his tenure as member of the board for the BIOSIS Company, a life sciences citation index that is now part of Thomson Reuters.Erickson is survived by his wife, June Andersen Erickson of Needham, Mass.; a sister, Ruth Hirtle of Alexandria, N.H.; four children, Kim Erickson Myers and her husband, James S. Myers, of Berwick, Maine, John Eric Erickson and his wife, Jeri Erickson, of Yarmouth, Maine, Martha Ann Erickson and her husband, John Kepler, of Lexington, Mass., and William Alan Erickson and his wife, Mary Ann Erickson, of Ithaca, N.Y.; and 10 grandchildren. He was predeceased by his brother, Robert Erickson of New Hampshire.He will be greatly missed by his friends and family for his kindness, creativity, wit, and his ability to find and share beauty with those around him.Visiting hours will be 4 to 7 p.m. on Friday April 15, at Eaton’s Funeral Home, 1351 Highland Avenue, Needham, Mass. A memorial service is planned for Saturday (April 16) at 2 p.m. at Carter Memorial Methodist Church, 800 Highland Ave., Needham Heights. Memorial donations in lieu of flowers may be made to the Alzheimer’s Association or The Walker Home, 1968 Central Ave., Needham, MA 02492.last_img read more