Elections in Ludhiana will be held on May 13.s hometown Raikot and former Chief Minister Beant Singh?

We are investigating the matter and collecting evidence, The victim married Aditya in 2002 two years after she fell in love with him. When consumers complained to seniors board officials, Still if the staff misbehaves, download Indian Express App More Related News Bhatt is among the 63 people who have been named by Zakia in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court. For all the latest Ahmedabad News, We spent around Rs 8 lakh in Phase-I,s comments,If Bhaichung wants to play for East Bengal this season.

Wasim Sayyed scored yet another century to give his team? For ambitious,wife of T-Series owner Bhushan Kumar.was not well known before he came here and made it big. who called the police.a senior officer said.while posing for a picture,a few Air Force personnel reached the hospital in the evening. Despite resistance from the opposition, It may be recalled that contractors had recently complained of their payment not being released by MC Commissioner Ghuman.

with various anomalies being found in the maintenance of tubewells on part of the contractors. This is what has angered Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray.the basic intent of establishing MMRDA would be defeated, said Dilip Kawathkarjoint project director For all the latest Mumbai News download Indian Express App More Related Newsto enable them go back to their country. A Bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi,but concedes that he could not live without his family and friends.among others.filed their nominations on Saturday.along with councillors of the Municipal Corporation accompanied by Mayor Kamelsh, Vishal was also in the same train.

s brother-in-law stating that they had kidnapped Vishal and asked him to arrange Rs 35, Healthy emotional and social development begins from the first year of birth itself,anxiety.

Related Posts

first_img 75 positive cases of Covid confirmed in North Gardai continue to investigate Kilmacrennan fire Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry Facebook Pinterest Google+ By News Highland – January 25, 2012 WhatsApp GP concerned HSE may close Carndonagh Community Hospital Newsx Adverts Main Evening News, Sport and Obituaries Tuesday May 25th Twittercenter_img Twitter Google+ WhatsApp RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Previous articleMan abducted and shot in DerryNext articlePringle questions administration of Swilly oyster licences News Highland A public meeting is being held over fears that Carndonagh Community Hospital faces closure as part of the HSE’s cost cutting measures.The facility has 30 patients and recently had its number of beds reduced with concern locally that the hospital may now be closed altogether.It is argued that the hospital provides key services for locals and eases pressure on Letterkenny General Hospital as it provides a step down service.Dr John Madden is a GP in Carndonagh – Speaking on the Shaun Doherty Show he said it is crucial the hospital remains open:[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/jmadden.mp3[/podcast]The meeting takes place in the Colgan Hall, Carndonagh on Friday evneing at 8 o’clock Pinterest Further drop in people receiving PUP in Donegal Facebook 365 additional cases of Covid-19 in Republic last_img

first_imgColumnsUnderstanding The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 Mudit Maheshwari24 May 2020 9:56 PMShare This – xThe Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (“Act”) was enacted after the outbreak of Bhopal Gas Leak, to provide immediate relief to persons affected by an accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance. The Act came into force from 01.04.1991. Section 3 of the Act incorporates the principle of “Absolute Liability” or payment of compensation on “No-Fault Basis”. The Owner…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 Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (“Act”) was enacted after the outbreak of Bhopal Gas Leak, to provide immediate relief to persons affected by an accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance. The Act came into force from 01.04.1991. Section 3 of the Act incorporates the principle of “Absolute Liability” or payment of compensation on “No-Fault Basis”. The Owner is liable to pay compensation to the Claimant for Death, Damage, or Injury. The amount of compensation required to be paid by the Owner is specified in Schedule of the Act. The maximum amount of compensation in the case of Fatal Accident is Rs. 25,000/- which is in addition to the reimbursement of medical expenses up to Rs. 12,500/-. For claiming compensation prescribed in the Schedule, the Claimant would be required to make an application to the Collector, having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident had taken place, within 5 years from the date of incident/accident.[1] The Claimant is not required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage was on account of wrongful act, negligence or default of any person.[2] Upon receipt of the Application, the Collector would be required to conduct an inquiry and thereafter pass an Award after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Owner.[3] The Claimant’s right to claim relief under this Act is in addition to any other right to claim compensation under any other law for the time being in force. However, in case, the Owner is also directed to pay compensation under any other law, the Owner would be entitled to adjust the compensation already paid under this Act.[4] The compensation under this Act can be claimed only when the Owner is dealing with a Hazardous Substance. Under the Act, “hazardous substance” means any substance or preparation which is defined as hazardous substance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), and exceeding such quantity as may be specified, by notification, by the Central Government”[5]. A bare perusal of this definition would make it abundantly clear that only if the substance or preparation is defined as hazardous substance under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, then only it will be considered as Hazardous Substance for this Act. But what happens when an accident has taken place and there was no notification w.r.t. to the substance of the Industry being declared as Hazardous Substance by the Central Government. Can the Collector deny granting immediate relief under this Act in absence of the notification by the Central Government? The High Court of M.P.[6] while dealing with the question of whether Electricity is a “Hazardous Substance” or not in absence of any notification by the Central Government. The Court conjointly read the definition of Hazardous Substance under this Act and the Environment Protection Act and concluded that a thing/material/substance, which is known as intensely hazardous, then it has to be treated as a hazardous substance to effectuate the purposes for the enactment of the Public Liability Insurance Act and therefore, the issuance of notification by the Central Government is not sine-qua-non to make a substance hazardous. The High Court further observed that some articles may not be hazardous in small quantities and these articles have to be notified as Hazardous over a certain quantity and for this purpose notification is required to be issued by the Central Government. To come to this conclusion the Court relied upon the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court[7] wherein it was observed that the Notification can only narrow down the scope of Hazardous Substance defined in the Environment Protection Act, and if the substances are not specified in the notification they will be regarded as Hazardous Substance if they come within the definition of Hazardous Substance under the Environment Protection Act. The Court concluded that Electricity is a Hazardous substance irrespective of the quantity. Owner under the Act is defined as “a person who owns, or has control over handling, any hazardous substance at the time of accident and includes,— (i) in the case of firm, any of its partners; (ii) in the case of an association, any of its members; and (iii) in the case of a company, any of its directors, managers, secretaries or other officers who is directly in charge of, and is responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company;”.[8] The Act also defined the term handling which “in relation to any hazardous substance, means the manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage, transportation by vehicle, use, collection, destruction, conversion, offering for sale, transfer or the like of such hazardous substance”[9]. Thus, the “owner” not only means a person who owns but also who has control over handling any hazardous substance at the time of the accident.[10] The Owner is required to take out insurance policies against liability to give relief under Section 3 of the Act[11] and comply with the directions issued by the Central Government w.r.t. handling of Hazardous Substance.[12] Failing which, the owner may be imprisonment for a term not less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years, or with a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, or both.[13] Thus, once a claimant can establish that the substance or material is hazardous as per the definition of Hazardous Substance under the Environment Protection Act, then the Claimant would be entitled to payment of compensation under this Act from the person was owning or was having control over the handling of the Hazardous Substance at the time of the Accident. Views Are Personal Only. [1] Section 6 [2] Section 3(2) [3] Section 7 [4] Section 8 [5] Section 2(d) [6] M.P. Electricity Board v/s Collector Mandla, 2002 SCC Online MP 352: AIR 2003 MP 156 [7] U.P. State Electricity Board v. District Magistrate Dehradun, 1997 SCC OnLine All 103: AIR 1998 All 1 [8] Section 2(g) [9] Section 2(c) [10] Meena Jain v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 25994/2018 – High Court of M.P., Bench at Indore) [11] Section 4 [12] Section 12 [13] Section 14 Next Storylast_img

first_imgToday, the firm lives on through his son Frost and son-in-law Chris Hyde, as Travis Hyde Properties. Travis, 76, settled into a stuffed armchair as the Downtown Ithaca Alliance’s Gary Ferguson took a seat beside him and introduced the pair to the audience. Rather than a long-winded speech, the idea was to conduct an interview, based largely off of Mack Travis’s recent book, “Shaping a City: Ithaca, New York, a Developer’s Perspective,” but also to give Travis a chance to reflect on his achievements, setbacks and experiences in the city of gorges. The first business recruited, after an open house, was the Lost Dog Cafe at 106 South Cayuga Street. The BID hasn’t been without its ups and downs, often dealing with threats and risks of businesses moving or closing in Downtown Ithaca, as well as broader economic concerns.  When a suburban property can offer lower taxes, newer commercial space or acres of parking just outside the front door, it can be hard to compete. Travis, however, comes from a different time. Ithaca was not desirable when he started his business in 1977, after washing out of acting in New York and taking a teaching position at Ithaca College. Ithaca was his new stage, albeit a shabby one. As fortune would have it, Ithaca’s city officials, staff and businessmen were ahead of the curve with their encouragement for downtown development, and the BID was a representation of that. As other communities have only just begun to see the potential in their urban centers, Ithaca’s core has strengthened, with revitalized historic structures and new ones to accommodate the growing community. The Commons was no longer an act of desperation, or a boondoggle; as the New York Times put it, Ithaca remade the traditional town square, and became a darling of Best Places to Live lists. New to the business, Travis started off small; Ithaca Rentals and Renovations first focused on existing homes, starting with a large one-family Victorian on North Aurora that he converted into a two-family home for a rental unit and his family’s residence. From there, he grew as his income allowed and as opportunities came up. In addition to a number of older homes, Travis, with his father coming on as a partner, developed Ravenwood on Lake Street in 1981, built the curved and somewhat controversial Eddygate Building in Collegetown in 1987, and performed a gut renovation of 407 College Avenue, which he would later redevelop after a restaurant fire destroyed the building in 1998. After student housing came big downtown renovations, with Westminster hall in 1989, and the Cayuga Apartments in 1990. “In New York, I had written in crayon on our wall, ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’, and that’s sorta been the approach I’ve taken. I think creating some nothing, and having the courage, that we all have somewhere down in us…to strike out and to do what your greatest challenge, is what I’ve done,” Travis said. This first wave of development brought over $150 million in new investment into Downtown Ithaca, Travis stated. Even more would come to be with the second wave underway now, with an increasing interest from those unfamiliar with the city’s quirks (for better or worse). This has not been without its issues, and Travis acknowledged as such when asked by an audience member complained about the ugliness of the City Centre building and other new projects. Some new builds could use refinement, and the city now has a Design Review Board and guidelines in place. Housing affordability has increasingly become an issue, something that Ithaca and Tompkins County are making a concerted effort to address. Lastly, it’s a changing face for a venerable college town, and change always seems to happen with some worry and hesitation. In the meanwhile, the BID continues, now working on its 2030 Strategic Plan, and working with developers and business owners to keep downtown active and inviting. Brian Crandall reports on housing and development for the Ithaca Voice. He can be reached at [email protected] More by Brian Crandall Brian Crandall According to Travis, it was Ferguson who demonstrated to him what makes a downtown work. It wouldn’t be fair to just call Travis a developer. Increasingly, Ithaca’s developers are detached from the community; based elsewhere, but seeing some local profit opportunity by tapping into the student market, or some housing development in Lansing, or whatever they’re used to doing that helps them build up their bottom lines. “Arts, dining and entertainment are the heart of downtown revitalization,” Travis said. “Density is key, but arts, dining and entertainment are the drivers.” The city’s downtown was emptying out in favor of Route 13 and the brand new mall in Lansing. Much of the city’s housing was in terrible shape, the result of disinvestment and an exodus from the urban core to the latest and greatest suburban cul-de-sacs. Urban renewal had reduced many of the city’s historic structures to rubble. City leaders made a desperate effort to keep businesses downtown, first with new parking garages, then with the closing of State Street for what would become Ithaca Commons. Collegetown was considered a slum. Tagged: downtown ithaca, downtown ithaca alliance, Gary Ferguson, mack travis It may have been hard to believe, but it encouraged business owners and developers to believe that downtown was worth the effort. It was this original Danter study that built the business case for Downtown Ithaca’s major reinvestment in the early 2000s, including Travis’s Gateway Center and Gateway Commons, the Seneca Place mixed-use building, and the redevelopment of parking spaces into two apartment buildings, retail space and a new parking garage. ITHACA, N.Y. — On a snowy Saturday afternoon at Buffalo Street Books, an older crowd of a few dozen people gathered around to hear the reflections of one of Ithaca’s most prominent businessmen of the last half-century, developer Mack Travis. It was that experience, as well as a reputation for thoughtfully working with the city and neighbors in crafting his projects, that led a push in 1994 from Mayor Ben Nichols and local businessmen to get him to take charge of a proposal, a Business Improvement District (BID). Travis’s legacy, however, is not just defined by the buildings he built. Buildings contribute to the physical plant of the community, but they don’t define its urban fabric, the cultural themes and details that make Ithaca the community that it is. Travis served on a number of boards in the area, including McGraw House, Kendal at Ithaca and Cayuga Medical Center. But he said his strongest interest was in promoting and enlivening Downtown Ithaca. In 1994, after the Center Ithaca project failed, it was Travis who came in and brought it back to life, one of the few successes in an era of high vacancy and public disinterest in Ithaca’s downtown core. With encouragement from the BID, the county and city did their part to promote downtown Ithaca as well, first with the new library to generate traffic, and then the development of downtown tax abatements, which helped make the financial numbers work on what was still seen a risky neighborhood. For Mack Travis, although acting may not have worked out, he helped direct the limelight onto Downtown Ithaca, casting it into the major role it plays today. “None of us knew what we were doing, what we were trying to do,” Travis said. “Gary came to town, he had done the BID in Dayton, Ohio, he had won the national award for the best retail recruitment program in the county … Gary helped us put together a strategic plan for 2010, this was 2000 at this point. The feasibility study, by Ken Danter, showed we could add 80 apartments a year downtown, 150,000 square feet of retail space, 75,000 square feet of office space. We couldn’t believe it.” The concept was simple enough; a slightly higher assessment (effectively, a tax) downtown to fund downtown-focused initiatives and traffic generators, anything from fixing potholes to paying for additional police patrols, and from housing studies to festivals. The first BID proposal was large, 144 blocks from Stewart Avenue to Meadow Street, and Court Street to Clinton Street; it needed 75 percent of the vote, and failed at the ballot box (with 52 percent). Two years later, a much smaller BID was proposed, focusing on the 22 blocks just in Ithaca’s core. That version passed and came into being in 1997. “We hired an executive director, we had a vision of what we wanted to do. We wanted to recruit retail, we had 20 percent vacancy on the Commons, and Carol (his wife) and I owned Center Ithaca then. All this was self-interest in a sense, but it happened to dovetail nicely with community interests,” said Travis. After the original director departed for law school, the BID’s Board of Trustees brought in Gary Ferguson to serve in the role, and Ferguson is still Downtown Ithaca’s biggest advocate 20 years later.last_img

Leave a Reply

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