KCS-content by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksPromoted LinksPromoted LinksYou May LikeDaily Finance StoriesChrissy Metz, 40, Shows Off Massive Weight Loss In Fierce New PhotoDaily Finance StoriesFameleyAt 56, Marjorie Elaine Harvey Lives HereFameleyMoneyMorningPaperThe 10 Richest Families Of The World. Especially No. 6 Is A Complete Surprise.MoneyMorningPaperhttps://alldelish.com44 Healthy Low-Carb Foods That Taste Incrediblehttps://alldelish.comBest Selling Grills | Search AdsTraeger Blaze & American Grills On SaleBest Selling Grills | Search AdsTopNews20 Everyday Things Kate Middleton Is Not Allowed To DoTopNewsArticles SkillFemale Cop Lives Two Lives, Seven Years Later The Truth Comes OutArticles Skillthedelite.comThe Best Big-Men In NBA History Ranked In Orderthedelite.comNinjaJournalist25 Cute Baby Animals That Will Melt Your HeartNinjaJournalist Divergence in UK housing market The UK housing market is increasingly “two tier”, with affluent markets on the rise and cheap areas continuing to slump. The most expensive 20 per cent of areas saw house prices increase by 3.4 per cent over the year, whilst the cheapest fifth declined by 5.1 per cent, according to a survey by Chesterton Humberts and the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR). whatsapp Show Comments ▼ Share whatsapp More From Our Partners Brave 7-Year-old Boy Swims an Hour to Rescue His Dad and Little Sistergoodnewsnetwork.orgI blew off Adam Sandler 22 years ago — and it’s my biggest regretnypost.comPolice Capture Elusive Tiger Poacher After 20 Years of Pursuing the Huntergoodnewsnetwork.orgA ProPublica investigation has caused outrage in the U.S. this weekvaluewalk.comNative American Tribe Gets Back Sacred Island Taken 160 Years Agogoodnewsnetwork.orgRussell Wilson, AOC among many voicing support for Naomi Osakacbsnews.comKiller drone ‘hunted down a human target’ without being told tonypost.comAstounding Fossil Discovery in California After Man Looks Closelygoodnewsnetwork.orgFlorida woman allegedly crashes children’s birthday party, rapes teennypost.com Wednesday 13 April 2011 7:54 pm Tags: NULL
Israel Houses ArchDaily House in Sde-Yizhak / GalPeleg Architects Projects Year: 2009 Save this picture!Courtesy of GalPeleg Architects+ 27 Share ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/52330/house-in-sde-yizhak-galpeleg-architects Clipboard Area: 240 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project CopyAbout this officeGalPeleg ArchitectsOfficeFollowProductConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesHousesIsraelPublished on March 13, 2010Cite: “House in Sde-Yizhak / GalPeleg Architects” 13 Mar 2010. ArchDaily. Accessed 12 Jun 2021.
CopySocial Housing•Barcelona, Spain Year: ArchDaily “Santa Madrona”. 62 Social Dwellings / Pich-Aguilera ArchitectsSave this projectSave“Santa Madrona”. 62 Social Dwellings / Pich-Aguilera Architects “COPY” ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/503794/santa-madrona-62-social-dwellings-pich-aguilera-architects Clipboard 2013 “COPY” Social Housing Spain photographs: Simon GarcíaPhotographs: Simon GarcíaCollaborators:INDAGSA, estructura. RP GRUP, instalaciones. GPCAT, mediciones y presupuestosConstructor:INBISAArchitect In Charge:Felip Pich-Aguilera Baurier, Teresa Batlle i PagèsHeads Of Groups:Angel Sendarrubias, Pau CasaldáligaProject Managers:Ute MünchebergCity:BarcelonaCountry:SpainMore SpecsLess SpecsText description provided by the architects. The project of “Santa Madrona” deals with an urban space, where two apartment blocks with an afforfable renting price have to be placed, nearby a small public square of the Gracia neighbourhood of Barcelona. The intervention had to place also, a public equipment on its ground floor, with a specific area and some specific leisure spaces. So then, the project had this interesting challenge to propose in one hand apartment blocks with an affordable renting price, with all the facilities that were needed, an urban space intimately bounded to the block’s life and an equipment that will promote the so necessary mixture of uses.All the project has contemplated, both in it’s urban planning abd construction, a respect in the resources used during its usefull life.In this regard sustainability as it begins in the public-private partnership that made the acquisition of viable solar concession by the “Obra Social La Caixa” and has made possible the promotion of affordable housing .Save this picture!© Simon GarcíaRecommended ProductsFiber Cements / CementsDuctal®Ductal® Cladding Panels (EU)WoodTechnowoodPergola SystemsEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesRodecaRound Facade at Omnisport Arena ApeldoornEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesAlucoilStructural Honeycomb Panels – LarcoreThe layout of the buildings volume set a square on the chamfer, allowing to clear the top corner of the street Travessera de Dalt with Escorial St. and bring in their own environment, a place of comfort in the middle of the city center.It is envisaged that the project that the natural comfort should be considered both in a city level and in the scale of the building.The buildings have been built with industrialized building systems, ensuring quality, deadlines and some prices as well as promoting the production and innovation of local industry on the one hand, and control of the consumption of resources, recycling and its reuse by another. The entire structure and its envelope was produced in factory and assembled at work. It is a heavy concrete structure with bearing walls. Supportive structure and facade are simplifying their performance and interior layout. Save this picture!Floor PlanBioclimatic MemoryThe homes have been designed and built with parameters of bioclimatic architecture, with an initial effort to reduce the demand for energy, followed by a detailed analysis and dimensioning of the facilities, introducing finally systems for producing renewable energy.The main aspects considered are:- All homes have natural cross-ventilation, which can be operated from manual processes, or from automated processes- All apartments have big balconies that ensure sun protection and can temper the climate outside the front inside.- All the rooms have been distributed to ensure each home with the maximum natural lighting.Save this picture!© Simon García- All the facade construction systems include the highest guarantee of isolation, both in its timber, and in the outer walls.- Harnessing sun for pre-heating the water reduces the gas consumption.- Command systems by detectin presence in common areas allows good distribution and optimization of the light.- It has beem selected those faciliteis systems with more performance and less consumption.- The buildings has got pneumatic garbage collection infrastructure.- The homes feature the latest technology for transmission of voice and data.Save this picture!© Simon GarcíaThe homes have been qualified by the Catalan Institute of Energy with Energy Certificate B, which is the highest rating that can be obtained, if conditions do not allow buildings to provide a high production of renewable energy.Finally it has been incorporated against the simplicity and compactness of the building, color and texture to the facade to distinguish each home and provide a bright and necessary identity in the magma of a large city.Project gallerySee allShow less”Every Building is a Social Critique” – Polshek Describes His Oeuvre in Latest BookMiscImpressive Line-Up Scheduled for UIA’s World Congress 2014Architecture NewsProject locationAddress:Travessera de Dalt, 92, 08024 Barcelona, SpainLocation to be used only as a reference. It could indicate city/country but not exact address. Share Year: “Santa Madrona”. 62 Social Dwellings / Pich-Aguilera Architects Projects Save this picture!© Simon García+ 17 Share Area: 5704 m² Area: 5704 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Photographs Architects: Pich-Aguilera Architects Area Area of this architecture project ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/503794/santa-madrona-62-social-dwellings-pich-aguilera-architects Clipboard 2013 CopyAbout this officePich-Aguilera ArchitectsOfficeFollowProductsSteelConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureSocial HousingBarcelonaHousingSpainPublished on May 09, 2014Cite: ““Santa Madrona”. 62 Social Dwellings / Pich-Aguilera Architects” 09 May 2014. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
The following is part of a document called “From a Tendency to a Party” written in 1972 (45 years ago!) by Sam Marcy, the founder and theoretical leader of Workers World Party. This section was entitled “Gay oppression.” The term “gay people” reflects the language of the movement in those early days, before its evolution into a struggle explicitly against the oppression of lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, trans and gender-nonconforming people.The oppression of national minorities is not the only oppression meted out by a divisive ruling class. There is also the extra oppression of women, of youth and of gay people.The degeneration of monopoly capitalism into state monopoly capitalism carries to an extreme all the forms of oppression which the capitalist system, in the previous epoch, had engendered and developed.As the crisis of the social system becomes more and more apparent, the need of the ruling class to unload its burden on the most oppressed sections of the society becomes more evident.Only by dividing, fragmenting and continually pitting different elements of the oppressed masses against each other can the capitalist establishment maintain its sway over all society and hope to survive.It is, however, the same sharpening of the persecution and oppression, the same divisiveness and fragmentation of the specially oppressed in society, that have awakened them to struggle and brought about a genuinely progressive militancy and resurgence of Black and Brown people, women, youth and gay people.There is a striking difference in the character of the support which has been given by the progressive movement generally to the oppressed nationalities, women and youth, as contrasted with the limited support to gay people. A great deal of this can be explained by the fact that the prejudice may be even more deep seated and profound than in the other cases. Much of it emanated from the religious bigotry of the Middle Ages, and little has been done to combat it. On the contrary, it has been reinforced by the entire course of capitalist development.Some explain the limited measure of support and sympathy to gay people by saying they constitute a numerically small segment of the population. This, however, is highly disputed by such an authoritative figure as Kinsey [Alfred Kinsey, an author of the Kinsey Reports].It is particularly significant that the public change in attitude — such as it is — comes on the heels of a very formidable wave of struggle by gay people, a veritable “coming out” in a most demonstrative way. Gay Pride took a cue from Black Pride.Without the launching of the women’s struggle, Freud’s reactionary theory concerning the inferiority of women might still be the prevailing conception. Without the momentous liberation struggles launched in the 1960s, the racist ideology of Oswald Spengler [German author of “The Decline of the West”] and his [U.S.] American disciples would still be taught openly, unabashedly and unashamedly. Without the struggle launched by gay people, the prejudices which have been ground into the consciousness of the masses by indoctrination would not even have been challenged, let alone shaken to their foundations.An important influence in the progressive movement, insofar as the gay struggle is concerned, dates back to the victory of the  October Revolution in Russia. The Soviet government annulled all laws that restricted the rights of homosexuals. It also annulled all the reactionary laws pertaining to divorce as well as the feudal family relations.For the first time in history, a workers’ government established equality in law, and to a measurable degree also in fact, between men and women, for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Unfortunately, this period of very progressive development was short lived, and was succeeded by a period of reaction with the rise of Stalin to power.Our Party, which bases itself on Marxism-Leninism, looks to the early model of the Soviet Union as the embodiment of what our own political position should be in relation to the struggle of gay people.Our first, most elementary and fundamental duty on this question is to completely eliminate and abolish all forms of persecution and oppression of gay people. We must also fight against all ideological, political and social manifestations of gay oppression that may be reflected in our own ranks.Ending oppression is really an elementary democratic demand that a bourgeois democracy should be able to grant, along with all other democratic demands. But imperialist democracy tends to restrict the elementary rights of all people — not only gays, women, youth, Brown and Black. It is only the struggle that can wrest concessions.In the long run, only the abolition of the capitalist system can produce a lasting free and equal treatment of all peoples.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
The city of Philadelphia acted on its threat to evict the Kensington Avenue and Tulip Street tent cities, as Workers World newspaper reported on May 24. (tinyurl.com/y6ug447w) However, this removal didn’t occur without a fight. For the first time, encampment residents fought back against the anti-poor, pro-gentrification program.On the night of May 29, former and current members of the camp told their stories of addiction, recovery and being rebuffed by the city’s Crisis Response Centers after seeking help. Dozens of supporters came forward to provide food, water and care packages to the city’s most marginalized people.The next day, dozens more residents publicly made demands on the city for respect when people reach out for help and transparency from Community Behavioral Health, Pennsylvania’s behavioral health managed care provider. They called for more access to methadone and buprenorphine programs and for additional treatment beds and better shelters. Workers World Party-Philadelphia was at the scene and stood alongside those struggling against this oppressive, anti-poor system.Vanessa Baker, organizer of the protest, promised encampment residents that the protesters wouldn’t leave them. This remained true: On May 30, they returned to march down the streets, making their demands and anger known to the city’s gentrifiers, whose arrival prompted the evictions.WWP-Philadelphia will stay true to Baker’s promise and pledge to support the rights of former encampment members to adequate treatment, health care and housing, and of current residents at the remaining homeless camps in the city.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Dozens of seniors were told to leave a bus that was on its way to the polls in Georgia.Atlanta — Major newspapers and national TV news programs have carried stories about the close Georgia governor’s race between Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is seeking to become the first Black woman governor in the country, and Brian Kemp, Republican secretary of state since 2010. Kemp’s office oversees voter registration and election results. Kemp has refused to resign from his position as secretary of state and from overseeing the very election he hopes to win.With Black people comprising at least one-third of Georgia’s electorate, and with the historic and bloody century-old battle to secure voting rights by formerly enslaved people in mind, the question of ongoing, deliberate voter suppression in this election is inevitable.During the Jim Crow era of state-enforced segregation, there were crude and blatant methods of denying the vote to African-American people. These ranged from a poll tax, having to name the exact number of beans in a jar, all-white primaries to evictions, job loss, physical threats, arson, beatings and killings.Nowadays those methods of voter suppression have generally been replaced by more sophisticated and often hidden means of restricting Black voter access. Much of this is done administratively behind closed doors.State-sponsored voter suppressionOne technique practiced during Kemp’s time in office is purging from voter rolls people who move frequently or fail to vote in several elections.According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 1.5 million voters were removed from the rolls between 2012 and 2016 — more than double the number from the previous four-year period. The center’s studies show the removal of inactive voters impacts people of color at a greater rate than other groups. The “purged” voters rarely know they have been removed unless they take the time to check with the secretary of state’s office.Kemp won his secretary of state position in part on a platform of promises to prevent “illegals” from voting and to ferret out voter “fraud.” He also got some of the first and most restrictive voter ID legislation in the U.S. from the Republican-controlled state legislature. Such legislation has also been shown to most adversely affect Black and poor voters.In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder diminished the pre-emptive enforcement powers of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. These had required federal approval of changes in voting policies and practices in areas where local and state governments have historically discriminated by enacting repressive voting requirements. This requirement is no longer in force in Georgia or other formerly designated areas.Gubernatorial contender Abrams, while the Democratic leader of Georgia’s House of Representatives, founded the New Georgia Project, whose goal was to register 800,000 new voters. Hundreds of volunteers from NGP and other groups have gone door-to-door, set up registration tables at festivals and community meetings and on street corners, and signed up hundreds of thousands of voters, mostly Black Georgians.In 2014, Kemp alleged that massive numbers of the Project’s registration forms were forged, duplicates or otherwise erroneous, and sued the organization for fraud and waste of taxpayer money caused by processing thousands of applications. Although the court dismissed his lawsuit, Kemp has continued his claims of “voter fraud” against the NCP.‘Exact match’ discriminationKemp instituted a departmental “exact match” policy in 2016. The Georgia legislature then passed a 2017 law for the same purpose. This required a person’s information on a voter registration application to match exactly what is on their state driver’s license or in Social Security Administration data.“Exact match” means that applications can be challenged or purged based on typos or clerical errors, as well as missing accent marks or hyphens. Though forms are accepted at a variety of state agencies, Secretary of State Kemp’s office determines final registration. At that point, small errors can be either accepted or ignored — depending on the applicant’s party affiliation.October 9 was the last day to register to vote in Georgia’s Nov. 6 general election, in which Kemp is running against Abrams. That day the Associated Press revealed that over 53,000 applications were “on hold” in Kemp’s office, unprocessed because of “exact match” issues.Two days later a coalition of civil rights and voting rights groups filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to allow all those people on hold and all those purged from the rolls since November 2016 due to “exact match” criteria to vote. The lawsuit asserts that 80.15 percent of those denied voting rights are African-American, Latinx or Asian-American. (tinyurl.com/y8yah2vm)While Kemp’s office issued a statement that people would be allowed to vote on Nov. 6 if they produced a legal ID at their precinct, no explanation has been sent to applicants about why they have not received voter registration cards.Another battlefront in the Georgia voting rights struggle is the closure of polling sites — more than 200 so far, many in rural areas, forcing people to drive long distances and deterring those without transportation. There is also a dubious pattern of rejection of absentee ballots, such as the more than 50 percent of those ballots sent in by Asian and African-American residents of Gwinnett County, a minority-majority county outside Atlanta. (tinyurl.com/ydatjjxy)However, the determination of 40 Black seniors in Louisville, Ga., tells the story of resistance to the real “fraud” in this election: white supremacist voter suppression.On Oct. 17, a bus belonging to the nonpartisan group Black Voters Matter arrived at a county-operated community center to take the seniors to an early voting site. But once they were on the bus, a Jefferson County worker ordered them off, citing “concerns” of unpermitted “political activity.”LaTosha Brown, a co-founder of BVM, said, “This is voter suppression, Southern style.” (tinyurl.com/yaqecsyx)Undeterred, the seniors waited for replacement transportation, singing and dancing, recounting past challenges to their right to vote and declaring, “Ain’t nobody gonna turn us around.”FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Man arrested in Derry on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences released PSNI and Gardai urged to investigate Adams’ claims he sheltered on-the-run suspect in Donegal Google+ Pinterest Twitter Newsx Adverts Facebook WhatsApp By News Highland – January 14, 2012 HSE warns of ‘widespread cancellations’ of appointments next week Twitter Pinterest Facebook Dail to vote later on extending emergency Covid powers 70% of Cllrs nationwide threatened, harassed and intimidated over past 3 years – Report RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Dail hears questions over design, funding and operation of Mica redress scheme Previous articlePoliticians meet in Dublin to plot Household Charge oppositionNext articleDonegal success at BT Science awards News Highland Google+ The owner of a Donegal house, which was the scene of an alleged rape and sexual assault, has denied that she didn’t take the accusations seriously.The house owner, who did not live in County Donegal, told a jury on day-three of the trial that she received an email from the alleged victim’s father, who was overseas, asking for help and saying his daughter had been attacked in the house.The 38-year-old accused man, who lived in the same house but had been away for some time, has pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to orally raping and sexually assaulting the woman on October 30, 2010.The house owner told prosecuting counsel Mr Bernard Condon SC, that when she received the email she phoned the house caretaker, asking her to call to the rented property to check out the allegations.She said she also rang the complainant and got the impression she could not talk freely. She said in a quiet tone ‘I need help’.Under cross-examination, the house owner told defence counsel, Desmond Murphy SC, she had met the accused about five times and “never received any complaints about him.”She said the accused lived in the property since 2009 and she never had any difficulties with him as a tenant.She denied that she did not take the allegations seriously after it was put to her that she did not instantly phone the gardai.She said she rang the gardai after the caretaker got to the house, and was very perturbed by what she was told had happened.The trial continues before Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy and a jury of five women and seven men. WhatsApp Donegal Rape Trial:House owner denies not taking claims seriously
Top StoriesIs Appointment Of Arbitrator By Ineligible Person Valid?Supreme Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench Mehal Jain15 Jan 2021 1:53 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court has referred to larger bench the issue whether the appointment of an arbitrator by a person, who is disqualified to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, is valid.A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph doubted the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs.M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has referred to larger bench the issue whether the appointment of an arbitrator by a person, who is disqualified to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, is valid.A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph doubted the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs.M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company and referred the issue to larger bench.In the decision delivered on December 17, 2019 in Central Organization of Railway Electrification, a division bench comprising Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna had held that such appointments by an authority who is disqualified from being an arbitrator can be valid depending on the facts.On the other hand, an earlier decision delivered by a 2-judge bench headed by Justice Nariman in the case Bharat Broadband Network Ltd vs United Telecoms Ltd(April 2019) had held that he appointment of arbitrator by a person who himself is ineligible to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is void ab initio.On January 11, 2021, a three judge bench headed by Justice Nariman observed that it prima facie disagreed with the decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs.M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company.”We have perused the aforesaid judgment and prima facie disagree with it for the basic reason that once the appointing authority itself is incapacitated from referring the matter toarbitration, it does not then follow that notwithstanding this yet appointments may be valid depending on the facts of the caseWe therefore request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of this judgment”, the bench ordered in the case Union of India v Tantia Constructions Ltd.The bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman was hearing the Centre’s SLP against a March 12, 2020 judgment of the Calcutta High Court, where the High Court had noted that the provisions of Section 12(5) as well as Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1996 admittedly being squarely applicable to the case, the General manager of the Railway cannot appoint any existing Railway Officer as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences of the parties. Hearing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner before the High Court had prayed for an order for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The facts giving rise to the application were that the respondent, Metro Railway, Kolkata awarded a contract in favour of the petitioner to execute some civil engineering work. As per Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract dated February, 2001 published by the Eastern Railway Engineering Division, all disputes and differences arising between the parties would be adjudicated through arbitration.In view of the disputes and differences arising between the parties, by a letter dated March 5, 2018 addressed to the General Manager of the respondent, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. By a letter dated July 5, 2018 the General Manager of the respondent forwarded the panel of two names of SAG Gazetted Railway Officers and two SAG retired Railway Officers to the petitioner and requested the petitioner to nominate two names out of the said panel.”At this juncture, it is to be noted that in view of the amendment in Section 12 of the Act of 1996 with effect from October 23, 2015 and incorporation of the Seventh Schedule to the same Act, any existing officer or employee of the railway cannot act as an Arbitrator…A copy of the application was served upon the respondent who was represented by learned counsel. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Metro Railway, Kolkata could not dispute the assertion made by the petitioner that by forwarding a panel comprising two existing Officers of the respondent, Metro Railway, Kolkata, the General Manager of the respondent Railway has in effect negated his right to appoint the Arbitrators”, observed the High Court.”Inspite of request made by the petitioner by the letter dated July 12, 2018, the General Manager of the respondent railway, being the appointing authority, did not prepare a fresh panel comprising persons who are not covered by any of the categories of the Seventh Schedule of the Act of 1996. After waiting for a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of said letter dated July 12, 2018 by the General Manager of the respondent railway, the petitioner has filed the present application. Therefore, this Application succeeds”, said the High Court. The High Court allowed the application and appointed two former High Court judges as the nominee-arbitrators of each of the parties and one former Chief Justice of a High Court as the Presiding Arbitrator.Before the Apex Court on Monday, ASG K. M. Nataraj, for the Union of India through the Kolkata Metro Rail, placed reliance on the December 17, 2019 decision of a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company. In the said case, the apex court had rejected the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-company that the General Manager of the appellant-organisation himself becoming ineligible by operation of law to be appointed as arbitrator, is not eligible to nominate the arbitrator.”Having heard Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG for sometime, it is clear that on the facts of this case, the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed”, said the bench headed by Justice Nariman on Monday.The bench, also comprising Justices Navin Sinha and K. M. Joseph, however, noted that reliance has been placed upon a recent three-Judge Bench decision of the Court delivered on 17.12.2019 in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, 2019 SCC OnLine 1635. “We have perused the aforesaid judgment and prima facie disagree with it for the basic reason that once the appointing authority itself is incapacitated from referring the matter to arbitration, it does not then follow that notwithstanding this yet appointments may be valid depending on the facts of the case. We therefore request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of this judgment”, ordered the bench.It may be noted that by virtue of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (w.e.f. 23.10.2015), Section 12(5) was inserted in the 1996 Act, which reads as under:”(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator:Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement in writing”Entry 1 of the said Schedule mentions the situation where ‘The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party’Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture CompanyIn Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, a three-judge bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi was hearing appeals against the orders of the Allahabad High Court by which the High Court rejected the contention of the appellant that the arbitrator is to be appointed as per General Conditions 64 (3)(a)(ii) and 64 (3)(b) of the Contract and appointed Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare as the sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties.The bench, also comprising Justices A. S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, noted that subsequently, after coming into force of the Arbitration Amendment, the Government of India, Ministry of Railways made a modification to Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract and issued a notification dated 16.11.2016 for implementation of modification. The modified Clause 64(3)(a)(ii) (where applicability of Section 12(5) has been waived off) inter alia provided that in cases where the total value of all claims exceeds Rs. 1 crore, the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a panel of three gazetted Railway Officers not below JA (Junior Administrative) Grade or two Railway Gazetted Officers not below JA Grade and a retired Railway Officer, retired not below the rank of Senior Administrative (SA) Grade officer as arbitrators. The procedure for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is provided thereon. Clause 64(3)(b) deals with the appointment of arbitrator where applicability of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has not been waived off. Clause 64(3)(b) stipulates that the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a panel of three retired railway officers not below the rank of Senior Administrative Officer as the arbitrators as per the procedure indicated thereon.The appellant had awarded work contract of Rs.165,67,98,570/- to the respondent-Company by an agreement dated 20.09.2010 which contains the arbitration clause. A contention was raised on behalf of the respondent-company that the General Manager himself becoming ineligible by operation of law to be appointed as arbitrator, is not eligible to nominate the arbitrator. Stand of the counsel for the respondent was that by virtue of Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Act, General Manager himself is made ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator and hence, he cannot nominate any other person to be an arbitrator. “The essence of the submission is ‘that which cannot be done directly, may not be done indirectly’. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377…In TRF Limited, though the court observed that once the arbitrator has become ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as an arbitrator, in para (50), the Court has discussed about another situation where both the parties could nominate respective arbitrators of their choice and that it would get counter-balanced by equal power with the other party”, noted the bench.The bench further appreciated that considering the decision in TRF Limited, in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC (India) Limited (2019) SCC Online SC 1517, the Supreme Court observed that there are two categories of cases. The first, similar to the one dealt with in TRF Limited where the Managing Director himself is named as an arbitrator with an additional power to appoint any other person as an arbitrator. In the second category, the Managing Director is not to act as an arbitrator himself; but is authorised to appoint any other person of his choice or discretion as an arbitrator. Observing that if in the first category, the Managing Director was found incompetent similar invalidity will always arise even in the second category of cases.”After referring to para (50) of the decision in TRF Limited, in Perkins Eastman, the Supreme Court referred to a different situation where both parties have the advantage of nominating an arbitrator of their choice and observed that the advantage of one party in appointing an arbitrator would get counter-balanced by equal power with the other party”, said the bench.In the present matter, after the respondent had sent the letter dated 27.07.2018 calling upon the appellant to constitute Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant sent the communication dated 24.09.2018 nominating the panel of serving officers of Junior Administrative Grade to act as arbitrators and asked the respondent to select any two from the list and communicate to the office of the General Manager. By the letter dated 26.09.2018, the respondent conveyed their disagreement in waiving the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Amendment Act, 2015. In response to the respondent’s letter dated 26.09.2018, the appellant has sent a panel of four retired Railway Officers to act as arbitrators giving the details of those retired officers and requesting the respondent to select any two from the listand communicate to the office of the General Manager. “Since the respondent has been given the power to select two names from out of the four names of the panel, the power of the appellant nominating its arbitrator gets counter-balanced by the power of choice given to the respondent. Thus, the power of the General Manager to nominate the arbitrator is counter-balanced by the power of the respondent to select any of the two nominees from out of the four names suggested from the panel of the retired officers. In view of the modified Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and 64(3)(b) of GCC, it cannot therefore be said that the General Manager has become ineligible to act as the arbitrator. We do not find any merit in the contrary contention of the respondent. The decision in TRF Limited is not applicable to the present case”, the bench had asserted.”There is an express provision in the modified clauses of General Conditions of Contract, as per Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and 64(3)(b), the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a panel of three Gazetted Railway Officers [Clause 64(3)(a)(ii)] and three retired Railway Officers retired not below the rank of Senior Administrative Grade Officers [Clause 64(3)(b)]. When the agreement specifically provides for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators from out of the panel serving or retired Railway Officers, the appointment of the arbitrators should be in terms of the agreement as agreed by the parties. That being the conditions in the agreement between the parties and the General Conditions of the Contract, the High Court was not justified in appointing an independent sole arbitrator ignoring Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract and the impugned orders cannot be sustained”, the court had held, Setting aside the impugned orders. The appellant was directed to send a fresh panel of four retired officers in terms of Clause 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract within a period of thirty days from today under intimation to the respondent-contractor. “The respondent- contractor shall select two from the four suggested names and communicate to the appellant within thirty days from the date of receipt of the names of the nominees. Upon receipt of the communication from the respondent, the appellant shall constitute the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Clause 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the communication from the respondent”, it was directed.Click Here To Download Order[Read Road]Next Story
Top Stories’Affirmative Action Not Limited To Reservation Only’: Supreme Court In Maratha Quota Case Hearing[Day 6] Radhika Roy22 March 2021 7:40 AMShare This – xOn the sixth consecutive day of the hearing in the Maratha quota case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court made observations regarding the need to move beyond reservations for the purposes of affirmative action.”Affirmative action is not limited to reservation only”, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, part of the 5-member bench, observed while hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal,…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?LoginOn the sixth consecutive day of the hearing in the Maratha quota case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court made observations regarding the need to move beyond reservations for the purposes of affirmative action.”Affirmative action is not limited to reservation only”, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, part of the 5-member bench, observed while hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who is supporting the Maharashtra State Reservation For Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act which provides for a quota to Marathas in jobs and education.”Other things can also be done. Why not promote education and establish more institutes? Somewhere this matrix has to move beyond reservation. Something more must be done”, Justice Bhat continued.Justice Ashok Bhushan, the presiding judge of the bench, made comments regarding the need to balance the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and reservation.On the previous day of hearing, the bench had asked for how many generations would reservations in jobs and education continue. The bench had also sought to know if the removal of 50% limit on reservation will affect the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and would lead to a “resultant inequality”.”If there is no 50% limit, what is the concept of Article 14 then? What would happen to the resultant inequality and for how many generations will this continue?”, the bench had asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was pleading for a reconsideration of the 50% cap imposed by the Inidra Sawhney judgment.The detailed account of the Day 6 of hearing before the the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat is given below.The bench heard the submissions of Senior Advocates Paramjit Patwalia, Shekhar Naphade and Kapil Sibal, who were arguing in support of Maratha quota.1. Sr. Adv. Paramjit Patwalia In today’s hearing, Patwalia resumed his submissions on the efficacy of the Gaikwad Commission report and informed the Court that multiple public hearings had been conducted to gauge the reaction of people to the proposal for reservations for Marathas. “For Mumbai, public hearings were first held at CBT, Belapur and Thane on July 13. A huge number of representations were also sent which stated that submissions had not been made and in order to accommodate the remaining number of representations, an extra hearing took place at an office in Mumbai for which intimation was given. There was no compliant about anyone being prevented to testify”, submitted Patwalia. To this, Justice Rao posed the question as to why there had been no opposition if publicity had been given – “It could have been that people may have not known if Maratha reservations were an addition to or a part of the 27% reservations. 90% respondents were Marathas.” Justice Bhat also added that the terms of reference never stated that it would be a separate quota and that the people in the General quota would have the presumption that a 50% limit would be there. Patwalia then argued that the Gaikwad Commission was not packed with Marathas and that the earlier reports had been adequately considered. The Bombay High Court had also taken cognizance of the same. In response to questions about the Kalelkar Commission, Patwalia responded, “The State set up a new Commission which did not find them [Marathas] as SEBCs. Centre did not accept the Kalelkar report. This is why there were protests. The Deshmukh Committee, which said that Kunbis appeared in the OBC category, noted that Marathas and Kunbis were two sides of the same coin. That is how Marathas started feeling resentment as they felt they were being left out”.Patwalia also underlined the fact that the huge population of Marathas and the small quota available created an “extraordinary circumstance” which validated the breaching of the 50% limit, and that this was the only harmonious solution available as sharing the well-established reservation limit would be catastrophic. “The reservation would have been a complete illusion. And this was done to make it real, and not illusory”, submitted Patwalia. This was opposed by the Bench who noted that merely because a community was in a far-flung area, it would not entitle them to reservation as per Indra Sawhney, and other conditions, such as remoteness leading them to being out of mainstream life and peculiar nature of being, would also need to be satisfied. Patwalia then concluded his arguments by stating, “Court should keep in mind that in cases like these, it is the subjective satisfaction of the State which the Court is putting to scrutiny. A community should be given an opportunity to uplift itself. Studies should be done from time to time to ascertain backwardness”. 2. Sr. Adv. Shekhar Naphade Naphade commenced his submissions by stating that the Gowda Committee and the State had not applied appropriate parameters for deciding the interests of the Maratha community, and that the Court could not sit in judicial scrutiny over the subjective satisfaction of the government in such issues. “There is no justification as to how they [the Court] ended up at 50% limit. Further, finding of the Court that reservation was not required was not necessary to finally decide the case. This takes us to the question on how to identify the ratio from the obiter”, submitted Naphade. He then contended that reasonableness regarding limit on reservations could not be decided based on abstracts as had been done in the MR Balaji decision. Reliance was further placed on the judgement of Justice Sawant in the Indra Sawhney judgment in order to put forth the observation that there could be no ceiling on reservations. Naphade concluded by submitting that in light of the diversity of views of different Judges on the 9-Judge Bench, there was a requirement to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 3. Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal Sibal initiated his submissions by stating that the matter was of great importance because what the Court would decide would end up securing the future of millions of people who belong to the backward classes. “This is the first time a Court is looking at these issues after Indra Sawhney. Also, you cannot look at Articles 15(4) and 16(4) in abstract. Because reservation is not an abstract concept. We also need to look into who can fix limits. Percentages per se are not within the scope of judicial review”, stated Sibal. Sibal then contended that the Indra Sawhney judgment did not consider the Mandal Commission report and that a limit could not be set on empowerment. He noted that the report had been critiqued by the majority and all it did was fix a limit for SEBCs at 50%. “I will delineate the parameters of Article 15 and 16. While 15 is about empowerment, 16 is about employment. While 15 deals with the ability to become eligible for jobs, Art. 16 deals with getting jobs once you’re eligible. Breach of 50% is not relevant for Article 15. How can a Court fix 50% for empowerment?” It was underlined by Sibal how fixing percentages was not a part of judicial function. He submitted that India was not a uniform country, but it was very diverse with every State containing multitudes of diversity in itself. “There’s no one size fits all answer here. Concept of equality will differ from one State to another. Backward classes in one State will be different from another State. You cannot straitjacket it. You can’t take into account the All-India figure”. At this juncture, Justice Bhat asked Sibal whether the 2011 census portrayed the OBC population separately to which Sibal responded that the 2011 census was not out. To this, Justice Bhat observed, “This is extrapolation then. Census does not carry caste-based census. It has been prohibited since 1931. From where have you figured out the data of persons belonging to the OBC category. Kindly submit the handbook, we will look into it.” Sibal then provided data pertaining to the Gross Enrolment Ratio (88% for USA and 28% for India) and submitted that there was a difference between developed and developing countries. “For a developed country, we need enough students to start going to schools and colleges. Why do we have Kendriya Vidyalaya schools? It is 100% for government servants. Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya is for girls only. There is nothing wrong with that. If the government provides 60-70% reservation, the Court can strike it down. But, it cannot say that it must be fixed at 50%”. Justice Bhat then observed that affirmative action could not be limited to reservations – “Other things can also be done. Why not promote education and establish more institutes? Somewhere this matrix has to move beyond reservation. Something more must be done”. Sibal agreed that the same had to be done by the States and then submitted that the need for education to be promoted was so that opportunities were not squandered due to lack of eligibility. He presented data on the number of SC/ST/OBC vacancies in employment. It was further averred that the Indra Sawhney judgment categorically dealt with the Office Memorandum and not the Mandal Commission report. “The Court was only dealing with the OM. What the OM did was give effect to respective State lists. The Court ruled that the lists would be valid and enforceable. Indra Sawhney said that a balance had to be struck. The 50% was meant to be a judicial exercise to balance power; to put a quietus on a tumultuous situation. No judgement before Indra Sawhney ever said that above 50% was bad. What was buried in the Mandal report by a 9-Judge Bench, was resuscitated by others”. He submitted that the Indra Sawhney judgement replaced the term caste for class in Article 16(4) and this could not be taken as a gospel truth for the fixing of an upper limit for reservation. The matter will continue tomorrow, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal resuming his submissions. BACKGROUND The pleas before the Constitution Bench challenges the Bombay High Court judgment passed in June 2019, and submits that the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, which provides for 12% and 13% quota to the Maratha community in education and jobs respectively, violated the principles laid in the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) as per which the Apex Court capped the reservation limit at 50%.The Bombay High Court, while upholding the Maratha quota, held that 16% reservation is not justifiable and ruled that reservation should not exceed 12% in employment and 13% in education as recommended by the State Backward Commission.On September 9, 2020, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the cases to a larger Bench to determine the issue whether State Government has the power to declare a class as Socially and Economically Backward after the Constitution (102nd) amendment.Reports of previous hearingsMaratha Quota Case : Indira Sawhney Decision Delivered After Much Discussion; No Need To Revisit, Datar Argues In Supreme Court’No Extraordinary Circumstance To Exceed 50% Limit’ : SC Constitution Bench Hears Lawyers Opposing Maratha Quota On Day 3Maratha Quota Case, Day 4 : Rights Of States On Backward Classes Not Affected By 102nd Constitution Amendment, AG Tells Supreme Court For How Many Generations Reservations Will Continue? Supreme Court Asks In Maratha Quota Case[Day 5] Next Story
Pinterest Google+ Twitter Facebook Pinterest Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Facebook AudioHomepage BannerNews As the festive season approaches, stark warnings have been issued to road-users about the consequences of drink-driving.The Donegal Road Safety Working Group is urging people to never drink or drug drive this Christmas.Meanwhile Gardaí say that they will be increasing the number of checkpoints over the festive period, which will run on a 24/7 basis and Gardaí can breath test any driver that has committed any road traffic offence.Donegal Road Safety Officer Brian O’Donnell says a major cross border effort will also be underway:Audio Playerhttp://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/brivghgfhgfhgfhanod.mp300:0000:0000:00Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume. WhatsApp Google+ Twitter News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programme Previous article2018 the best ever year for Irish tourismNext articleFunding available in 2019 for angling projects & events in Donegal News Highland RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR By News Highland – December 18, 2018 Stark warning issued to Donegal road users this Christmas WhatsApp Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Community Enhancement Programme open for applications