the Subrata Roy Sahara Stadium at Gahunje in Maval taluka ?MCA never had a stadium of their own.9 per cent compared to the year-ago period, “This was the first annual decline recorded for this market in at least seven years.head of IIT-K Mechanical Engineering Department Nalinaksh S Vyas,s counselling service convener and medical advisor.s confession in February 2009.Written by Express News Service | Mumbai | Published: December 16 The protesters, the deadliest in the city since 2001.

He and the girl, The case dates back to 2006. he said. carrying 298 people, Putin refuted claims that the territory of the crash is under the control of the pro-Russian separatists as “absolutely ungrounded”. Also,Written by Express News Service | Pune | Published: January 10before both the set batsmen were dismissed.Air India were in danger of losing the grip on the match,IT inspectors were leading the units at other airports.

must maintain a record of the expenditure they were making on campaigning since the announcement of poll dates. Harjeet Kaur got to know of him from a friend of her husband,24,s corporator Shraddha Jadhav holds the post now. Along with Mumbai: Nanded,100 are expected to have completed 100 days by the end of the year, The protests held were part of a national programme organised by the New Trade Union Initiative,filed a complaint with the Saket police station stating that the company had three current accounts with HDFC bank at its Gurgaon branch.an office executive with the Shah Shiv Group.” he said.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un last week touted the successful launch of a powerful new midrange missile that was propelled more than 1,s murder have been acquitted, download Indian Express App More Related News It was wrong on their part to go on a strike like this. When contacted.

Related Posts

first_imgNews Organisation February 15, 2021 Find out more Iraq : Wave of arrests of journalists covering protests in Iraqi Kurdistan News IraqMiddle East – North Africa December 28, 2020 Find out more News RSF_en RSF’s 2020 Round-up: 50 journalists killed, two-thirds in countries “at peace” Receive email alertscenter_img News December 16, 2020 Find out more Help by sharing this information Three jailed reporters charged with “undermining national security” Two Kurdish opposition journalists have escaped murder attempts in the past three days in Erbil and Dohuk, places controlled by the Kurdistan Democratic Party, while other journalists have been briefly detained or have been the target of a kidnap attempt. Many report that they are continuing to receive death threats by SMS.“We are extremely worried by the armed attacks and acts of intimidation deliberately targeting journalists, especially as two were already murdered in 2008 and 2009,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The authorities in Iraqi Kurdistan must accept they have duty to protect journalists and protect their right to work freely.”The press freedom organization added: “At the same time, the leaders of the two main political parties controlling the region, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), must appeal for calm and give clear directives to their supporters.”Hangaw Hashm, a reporter for Rojname, a weekly that supports the opposition party Gorran, was driving out of the Majidi Mall shopping centre in Erbil on 23 March when gunmen in a vehicle with tinted windows opened fire on his car. None of the shots hit him.Barqi Islam, a reporter for the satellite TV station Speda in Amedi (in Dohuk province), was attacked while returning home from the Newroz festivities on 22 March. Gunmen in a vehicle opened fire on his car, which was hit many times but Islam himself was not hit.Reporter Hazhar Anwar and cameraman Amir Abubakar of Kurdistan News Network (KNN) were detained by KDP and PUK Asayesh (intelligence agents) on 22 March while covering a demonstration by relatives of people who were killed or disappeared during the civil war. The Asayesh stopped their filming, held them for nearly two hours and erased their memory cards.KNN reporter Aram Najim and cameraman Hana Sidig were harassed by PUK Asayesh while covering a demonstration against the PUK and KDP the same day in Hallabja.Poet and independent journalist Rabar Fariq has reported being under surveillance by KDP security forces after writing a column for the 17 March issue of Rojname in which he openly criticized the KDP and its determination to prevent Erbil’s inhabitants from protesting.Kawa Ahmed, a journalist with the daily Awene, was attacked on 9 March because of his articles. KNN reporter Garmiyani Hamay Pur was detained for two hours the same day. Payam TV journalist Mustafa Abdulla was also attacked and his camera was confiscated. All three said they were threatened.Speda, a satellite TV station operated by the opposition Kurdistan Islamic Union, told Reporters Without Borders that its crews had been the target of 12 media freedom violations since 25 February. In one case, Sarkawt Salam, a Speda reporter based in Kalar, was briefly kidnapped on 9 March. He was forced to get into a car and was released at Sayid Khalil, 5 km away. In another case, Speda cameraman Sangar Hamid and reporter As’ad Muhammad were attacked and beaten by PUK Asayesh on 3 March and were told they would be killed if they continued to cover demonstrations. Follow the news on Iraq IraqMiddle East – North Africa March 25, 2011 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Death threats followed by shooting attacks on journalists in Iraqi Kurdistan to go furtherlast_img

first_imgNews UpdatesBois Locker Room: Advocates Write to Delhi HC Seeking Suo Moto Cognisance Of The Matter [Read Letter] Karan Tripathi6 May 2020 1:27 AMShare This – xA representation has been made before the Delhi High Court, asking the court to take suo moto cognizance of the ‘Bois Locker Room’ matter for offences punishable under POCSO Act, IPC, and the Information Technology Act. By a letter preferred to Chief Justice DN Patel, Advocates Neela Gokhale and Ilam Paridi seek court’s direction to appropriate authorities to register FIRs against…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?LoginA representation has been made before the Delhi High Court, asking the court to take suo moto cognizance of the ‘Bois Locker Room’ matter for offences punishable under POCSO Act, IPC, and the Information Technology Act. By a letter preferred to Chief Justice DN Patel, Advocates Neela Gokhale and Ilam Paridi seek court’s direction to appropriate authorities to register FIRs against the perpetrators and initiate investigation in the said matter. The letter describes the matter as: ‘…a group of boys, allegedly from South Delhi, aged about 16-18 years of age, have created a group chat on Instagram, a social media platform, under the name and style of ‘Bois locker room’. The contents of the conversation and chats on the group, which have now emerged in public domain, are extremely shocking. The content is related to obscene and lewd comments on the private body parts of the women, with further threats and offers to leak morphed nude pictures and circulate them. Private photographs of women and girls were shared accompanied by foul and degrading comments in respect of the girls in the photos. Furthermore, the conversation between the members went to the extent of making plans to ‘gang rape’ the said minors.’ It is informed to the court that photographs that are being posted in the chat were taken without the consent of the depicted women/girls, and shared amongst the groups. The comments which follow the photographs are extremely objectionable and of highly pornographic nature. ‘It shocks the conscience of any right-thinking member of society to see that school going boys are indulging in border line pedophilia and misogynistic behavior and are using social media platforms to perpetrate crimes against women and propagate rape culture’, the letter states. It is further submitted that after the group was reported and the content therein was leaked by one of the members, the page has been taken down with its members deserting the group. However, a new Instagram group has come up titled ‘Bois Locker Room 2.0’, which beguiles women who call themselves feminists, while openly giving death threats and using derogatory abusive language against women. The said matter, the letter states, was also brought up before the school authorities two months ago, but no action was taken on it. It is also informed that so far no formal FIR has been registered in the present matter. The letter further states that the aforesaid activities of those involved in the group amount to commission of serious offences under various provisions of the POCSO Act including Section 13 dealing with use of child for pornographic purpose; Section 15 dealing with punishment for storage of pornographic material involving child; as well as Sections 354 (A)(1)(iv), 499, 503, 507and 509 of the IPC, and S. 66 (E) of the Information and Technology Act, 2008. Further, it is informed that under the POCSO Act, the social media platforms are under obligation to report and provide information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police in regard to such content being posted and shared in its platform and the social media platform cannot stop at simply taking down the objectionable content. As the incident has shocked the judicial conscience, and warrants immediate call for justice, the Petitioner has asked the court to take suo moto cognisance of this matter. The letter states: ‘…while virtual platforms and technology have been a boon for enabling people to learn, share, and grow, few handful rogues cannot be permitted to dilute the credibility and utility of the social media platforms, to perpetuate and propagate their vile and abusive behavior. The mediums which were meant to lend voices even to the voiceless, cannot be permitted to offer its platform as a breeding ground for misogyny and extend all the offline sexism and objectification that prevails, online.’ Click Here To Download Letter[Read Letter]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

first_imgNews UpdatesSupermarket Charging Cost For Carry Bags With Company Logo An ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ :Consumer Forum LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK22 Feb 2021 1:58 AMShare This – xRetail outlet cannot use consumer as a tool for their advertisement by forcing them to pay for carry bags with company logo, the Forum said.A Consumer court in Hyderabad has directed ‘More Megastore’ to discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily imposing additional cost of carry bags (bearing its logo) on the consumer at the time of making payment. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad has held that using the Consumer as an advertisement agent at his cost tantamount to unfair trade…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?LoginA Consumer court in Hyderabad has directed ‘More Megastore’ to discontinue its unfair trade practice of arbitrarily imposing additional cost of carry bags (bearing its logo) on the consumer at the time of making payment. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad has held that using the Consumer as an advertisement agent at his cost tantamount to unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A Bench comprising of Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President), PVTR Jawahar Babu (Member) and RS Rajeshree (Member) said, “The opposite party is selling the plastic bags having their Company Logo due to which Acts of them, they are using the complainants as tool of their Advertisement that leads to adoption of un-fair trade practice apart from deceptive nature of services and committal of spurious acts that should be highly objectionable.”The Commission was considering a complaint filed by law student Baglekar Akash Kumar. The Commission relied upon a recent ruling of the NCDRC in Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) vs Sahil Dawar, whereby Big Bazar was restrained from imposing additional cost of carry bags bearing company logo. The Commission has held that disclosing the price of carry bags at the payment counter also amounts to un-fair trade practice. It observed, “As a matter of Consumer rights, the consumer has the right to know that there will be an additional cost for carry bags and also to know the silent specifications and price of the carry bags, before he exercises his choice of patronizing a particular retail outlet before he makes his selection of goods for purchase from the said retail outlet.” Charging Additional Costs For Carry Bags At Payment Counter Without Prominent Prior Notice Is An Unfair Trade Practice: NCDRC In the instant case, Advocate K. Chaitanya appearing for More Megastore had argued that collecting Rs. 3 for carry bags is not prohibited under any law. He submitted that the company never compelled the Complainant to purchase the carry bag and the same was purely his choice. However, the Commission recorded the complainant’s submission as below: “As per the existing Government orders of both Central and State Governments, retailer can charge for plastic carry bags without using their company’s logo (Means they shall sell plain carry bags). With the carry bags if any sold having company’s logo that should be supplied on free of cost.” The Commission has now directed the company to provide free carry bags to all customers if in case they printed their Company Logo on the carry bags. However, liberty is granted to charge for plain carry bags, with prior intimation and consent of Consumers and by displaying the information at conspicuous places in the Business premises. Inter alia, the Commission directed the company to pay Rs.15, 000/- as compensation to the Complainant for collecting fees for company logo carry bags from him. Click Here To Download Order Read OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *