Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Banking sector has released it’s 2015 interim results for the first quarter.For more information about Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) 2015 interim results for the first quarter.Company ProfileInfinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc is a mortgage banking institution in Nigeria offering mortgage lending and lines of credit. The company’s head office is in Abuja, Nigeria. Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
“This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! See all posts by Alan Oscroft Alan Oscroft | Thursday, 30th January, 2020 | More on: EVR 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. Image source: Getty Images Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. The FTSE 100 is a great place for seeking top dividends, so surely you’d buy steel producer Evraz (LSE: EVR) for its mooted 13.7% yield, wouldn’t you?That’s what the 51.5p expected by the City for the year ended December 2019 would yield. And a first-half payment of 35c (27p) per share does tend to support it. At the interim stage, the company said the payment reflected “the board’s confidence in the group’s financial position and outlook.”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…The expected 2019 dividend would be covered less than 1.2 times by forecast earnings, mind, and analysts aren’t expecting sustainable yields at that level. But we’re still looking at forecasts of around 9.5% for 2020 and 2021. It wouldn’t take many years of that for you to accumulate a sizeable pot.So why have investors marked Evraz shares down to a P/E of only six?ProductionFull-year results are not due until 27 February. But Evraz released a trading update Thursday, and it seemed a bit of a mixed bag to me.Crude steel production rose in Q4 and over the full year, partly thanks to the reopening of a steel plant in Siberia after repairs. The final quarter saw a 2.1% rise, with full-year production up 6.1%. Steel product sales were up 6.6% quarter-on-quarter. But raw coking coal was down 5.3%, with coking coal concentrate down 16.7%.And while steel production is up, average selling prices are down.But the firm’s production is not what worries me about Evraz. No, I’m concerned by the company’s financial state.DividendI’ve always been wary of companies that pay big dividends while shouldering big debt. It is, in effect, borrowing money to hand out to shareholders.Now, I know that you can gear up profits using debt, providing the cost of debt is relatively low. But I think that only makes sense if you’re selling high-margin goods and services. In low-margin industries, for example commodities like steel, debt might be a necessary evil. But I don’t see it as a desirable thing.If I struggle to get my head around the reasons companies are willing to take on more debt than I think is sensible, when I look at the Evraz picture, my brain comes close to exploding.DebtAt the interim stage at 30 June, it reported total debt of $4,526m. Net debt reached $3,650m, up from $3,571m at the previous year end. The firm put that down to changes in lease accounting under IFRS 16, but it’s huge, however you look at it.It’s 1.23 times estimated EBITDA (using an annualised figure based on the first half), which might not look too stretching. But EBITDA was down 22% at the halfway stage, and forecasts indicate further weakness.If Evraz was just paying a modest dividend under such debt pressure to keep it ticking over, I could understand it. Provided it had strong future earnings growth expectations, that is. But the growth isn’t there, and the dividend is huge.I’ve previously pointed out that the chairman and other top shareholders of the Russian company have dumped shares, and that’s a red flag too. As is the ‘Russian’ thing — I prefer companies operating in more transparent environments.If I didn’t have a bargepole, I’d buy one just to not touch Evraz with. Is this the riskiest stock in the entire FTSE 100? 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. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Enter Your Email Address Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Alan Oscroft has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. 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.
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. Enter Your Email Address 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. What has the 2020 stock market crash taught me? Actually not a lot that’s new, as I’m old enough to have lived and invested through a few downturns. Nothing as steep as this one, mind. But it’s driven home quite a few things that I do need to keep being reminded of.I think there’s plenty to learn this year, for everyone from beginners to experienced investors. So here are three things I have seared into my mind by the events of 2020.5G 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…Nobody expects a stock market crashI was talking to someone thinking of getting into shares recently. I did my usual spiel about investing for the long term, and how the stock market beats other forms of investing hands down.“But there might be another stock market crash,” he said. No, not might. Will. For sure. They’re inevitable, though thankfully usually quite far apart. But nobody seems to expect them, and almost everyone is surprised when we get one. “Well, smarty pants, you didn’t expect the Covid-19 pandemic, did you?” I might get thrown back at me.No, I didn’t. But that’s missing the point. Every stock market crash starts with something unexpected. But unexpected things happen all the time. And even if we can’t know what the next unexpected thing is going to be, we do know we’re going to get them.We can always benefit from panic reactionsI’ve also been reminded of one seemingly inevitable thing. Whenever there’s bad news, the market will overreact. It often happens when companies report disappointing results. Investors will sell out, and the share price falls. But so many times, it hits a deep low and then starts to recover. Yet when we have a general stock market crash, we tend to see it to excess. Just look at the FTSE 100 chart this year. In a little over month from the pandemic’s arrival, the index had slumped 35%. But then markets picked up and and the Footsie hasn’t been that low since. So I ask myself, what was so bad for the stock market in March that was so much better in June or July? I don’t see anything.So, for me, a stock market crash is clearly a great investing opportunity. And it can pay to buy in the early days.Invest for a crash, all the timeWhat’s the best way to invest to minimise stock market crash losses? A lot of people have been asking that question in 2020. But that’s too late. At least, for this crash. It’s no good selling stocks that have already crashed and buying safer ones after they’ve risen.And what would we do later, when the crash is over? Sell our defensive stocks, which will very likely have fallen back by then? And then buy back into the ones we sold, almost certainly at a recovering higher price? That seems like a guaranteed way to lose money to me.My approach to investing for safety is to buy into the very best companies I can find. I mostly like ones offering essential goods and services, and with little or no debt. But I think the time to buy those is all the time. Not after a stock market crash has arrived. Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! 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. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Views expressed 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. “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” See all posts by Alan Oscroft Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Alan Oscroft | Saturday, 28th November, 2020 Image source: Getty Images 3 things I’ve learned from the 2020 stock market crash
A coalition of groups, including the Korean American National Coordinating Council and the Korean Peace Alliance, held an event on June 4 outside the Korean Consulate in downtown Los Angeles and organized the hanging of a moving ribbon that called for a unified Korea. The coalition emphasized the need for peace with the USA and a formal declaration to end the Korean War. People collected ribbons from around the USA and hung them in the front of the consulate. The unified flag of one Korea was duct taped to the building and passersby were encouraged to add their messages to the display.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
In-depth reportingTimeka Gordon influences America’s future leadersBy Drew Mitchell – October 29, 2020 1161 Linkedin print RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR ReddIt Drew Mitchellhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/drew-mitchell/ Drew Mitchell The Office of Religious & Spiritual Life to host eighth annual Crossroads Lecture Previous articleHoroscope: October 29, 2020Next articleEpisode 222 – CFB Week 8, NFL Week 7 Recap Drew Mitchell Students elect new SGA vice president Students debut performances of drag personas as part of unique new course Facebook World Oceans Day shines spotlight on marine plastic pollution Drew Mitchell is a Journalism major with an African American Studies Minor from Arlington, Texas. He has worked on staff for TCU 360 since his freshman year and is currently the Executive Editor of the Skiff, where they design and print a weekly paper for the TCU community. Landing zones to remain on campus for spring semester Drew Mitchellhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/drew-mitchell/ Facebook Grains to grocery: One bread maker brings together farmers and artisans at locally-sourced store TCU receives 100 more COVID-19 vaccines ReddIt Twitter Drew Mitchellhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/drew-mitchell/ Twitter Linkedin Fort Worth’s first community fridge program helps serve vulnerable neighborhoods Drew Mitchellhttps://www.tcu360.com/author/drew-mitchell/ + posts TCU social work majors go into the field to help support Fort Worth’s homeless
News Violence against the press in Haiti: RSF and CPJ write to Minister of Justice July 10, 2002 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Jean Dominique case given to new judge News November 14, 2019 Find out more October 11, 2019 Find out more HaïtiAmericas Organisation The investigation into the murder of the radio journalist Jean Dominique has been handed over to Judge Bernard Saint-Vil, who has been in charge of the enquiry into the supposed attempted coup last 17 December. The decision to transfer to him all the former responsibilities of Judge Claudy Gassant was reportedly taken at a meeting of judges on 24 June presided over by senior judge Jocelyne Pierre.06.25.02 – Jean Dominique case / Judge Gassant: “I am nothing to do with this any more.” Exiled judge Claudy Gassant (photo), formerly in charge of investigating the April 2000 murder of prominent radio journalist Jean Dominique, has denied the Haitian government’s claim that it officially informed him he was being reappointed to lead the enquiry.He told Reporters Without Borders that remarks by presidential spokesman Jacques Maurice, reported in the Haitian daily paper Le Nouvelliste on 11 June, that he had twice been formally notified were not true.Instead of contacting him, he said, the government had tried to blame him for the hold-up in the investigation. But it was President Jean-Bertrand Aristide himself who was blocking it, he said, adding: “I am nothing to do with this case any more.” Despite Aristide’s public reassurances, his life would probably be in danger if he returned to Haiti from the United States, he said. Following Gassant’s remarks, Reporters Without Borders, the Damocles Network and the Haitian Journalists’ Association (AJH) called for the case to be transferred to another judge. “There is now no reason for this investigation to remain without anyone in charge of it,” they said in a joint letter to Jocelyne Pierre, head of the Port-au-Prince civil court.”We regret Judge Gassant’s position, but the most important thing is that the legal process continues so that the investigation (which Gassant had completed) can be officially declared at an end and the trial of those accused of the crime can begin,” said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard, AJH secretary-general Joseph Guyler C. Delva and Damocles vice-president Jean-Pierre Getti.They called on Judge Pierre not to focus on procedural matters that would hold up the appointment of a new judge in the case. “It is no longer important whether it was President Aristide or Judge Gassant who did not follow the right procedures. The facts are that Aristide said he was reappointing Gassant and Gassant has indicated he is no longer interested in the job. The extreme importance of this case for Haitian society requires that it now be handed over as soon as possible to another judge who is competent and independent,” the three bodies said. Jean Dominique (photo), Haiti’s best-known journalist and political commentator, was shot dead on 3 April 2000 in the courtyard of the radio station he ran, Radio Haiti Inter. He was famous for being outspoken and criticised former Duvalierists, ex-army figures and the country’s rich families alike. Not long before he was killed, he also accused people inside Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party of trying to “divert the movement from its original ideals.”The investigation of the murder was assigned to Judge Gassant in September 2000 after the previous judge in charge of it, Jean-Sénat Fleury, resigned after receiving threats. Gassant’s term expired on 3 January this year and was not renewed by Aristide. It was, however, three months later, on 1 April, after national and international pressure.A presidential spokesman then said the Dominique enquiry would once more be his responsibility. Gassant has not formally responded to this decision, saying it has not been officially forwarded to him in the United States, where he has been living since January. During the 16 months he was investigating the murder, he was frequently threatened and subjected to pressure. HaïtiAmericas Receive email alerts RSF_en to go further News Help by sharing this information News Another journalist murdered in Haiti Follow the news on Haïti The investigation into the murder of the radio journalist Jean Dominique has been handed over to Judge Bernard Saint-Vil, who has been in charge of the enquiry into the supposed attempted coup last 17 December. The decision was reportedly taken at a meeting of judges on 24 June. Journalist shot dead amid anti-government protests in Haiti June 11, 2019 Find out more
Facebook’s Oversight Board is just a stopgap, regulation urgently needed, RSF says June 7, 2021 Find out more Organisation RSF_en WhatsApp blocks accounts of at least seven Gaza Strip journalists Reporters Without Borders welcomes the news of freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf’s release yesterday after 224 days in prison for refusing to surrender unedited video footage to the federal judicial authorities. The organisation reiterates its call for a federal law recognising the right of journalists to professional secrecy. Reporters Without Borders voiced relief on learning of the release yesterday of freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf, who had been held for 224 days in California in a case involving source confidentiality. A second attempt at judicial mediation by federal Judge Joseph Spero with Wolf and his lawyers concluded successfully after two days. Wolf yesterday posted all of the video files requested by Judge William Alsup on his website and promised to hand them over after obtaining the prosecutor’s assurance that he will not be compelled to testify before a federal court. Reporters Without Borders welcomes Wolf’s release with great satisfaction. The press freedom organization had described his imprisonment as “judicial persecution” of a journalist who had a legitimate right to protect his sources. “Wolf’s release is obviously excellent news, because it puts an end to a flagrant injustice,” Reporters Without Borders said. “However, this is only a half-victory. The federal court has clearly abandoned the idea of making Wolf testify and name his sources, but he has nonetheless been forced to disclose unpublished material.” Reporters Without Borders would like to salute the courage of this young freelancer, who spent more time in prison that any other journalist in the history of the United States in order to protect his sources. “Josh gave up his freedom for 224 days because he believes that a free and independent press cannot exist without a trusting relationship between a journalist and his information source,” the organisation said. “The attacks on source confidentiality have been multiplying over the last few years, thereby jeopardizing the right of Americans to be fully informed. Too many journalists have spent time in prison, or have been threatened with being sent there. It is the duty of the US congress to adopt, as soon as possible, a federal shield law that will acknowledge the right of journalists to protect their sources.”The case goes back to 2005, when Wolf filmed a protest in San Francisco against a G8 summit. After refusing to comply with a federal subpoena to hand over his unedited video and testify to a grand jury investigation into an attack on a police car during the demonstration, he was found in contempt of court and was initially imprisoned from 1 August to 1 September 2006. He was sent back to Dublin prison, near San Francisco, on 20 September after judges rejected an appeal. In all, he spent 224 days in prison.Alsup, the federal judge who imprisoned Wolf, finally ordered judicial mediation on 14 February and assigned the job to Judge Spero.The right of journalists to professional confidentiality is recognized by 33 states of the union. The house of representatives of the northwestern state of Washington unanimously passed a “shield law” of this nature on 16 February. Other shield laws are being debated by the states of Missouri, Utah, Massachusetts and Texas. News Help by sharing this information April 4, 2007 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Freelance journalist Josh Wolf released after 224 days in prison to go further NSO Group hasn’t kept its promises on human rights, RSF and other NGOs say Receive email alerts News Follow the news on United States News United StatesAmericas News United StatesAmericas June 3, 2021 Find out more April 28, 2021 Find out more
By News Highland – July 22, 2011 75 positive cases of Covid confirmed in North RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Popular Donegal farmers market to be served with closure order Twitter Main Evening News, Sport and Obituaries Tuesday May 25th Pinterest Facebook WhatsApp After weeks of speculations it is expected that the popular Donegal Food and Craft Market, held in Donegal Town, is to be served a closure order in the coming days.The move is off the back of a complaint form a local business that Casual Trading is taking place in Donegal Town, contrary to the provisions of the Casual Trading Act 1995.The enforcement is an executive function of the Council.Councillor Brenden Byrne hopes a solution can be found to allow the market continue:[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/bren1pmmarket.mp3[/podcast] Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry Google+ Facebook Newsx Adverts Previous articleMan found guily of manslaughter in Garda Gary McLoughlin caseNext articleLetterkenny case highlights concerns over Doctor training News Highland 365 additional cases of Covid-19 in Republic WhatsApp Twitter Pinterest Google+ Further drop in people receiving PUP in Donegal Gardai continue to investigate Kilmacrennan fire
News Updates[S.141 NI Act] Post-Retirement The Director Can’t Be Held Responsible For Daily Affairs Of Company Including Cheques Issued And Dishonoured [Read Judgment] Sparsh Upadhyay27 Sep 2020 5:07 AMShare This – xThe Delhi High Court on Wednesday (23rd September) ruled that a person, who has retired as the Director of the Company, cannot be said to be in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the Company, as contemplated in Section 141 of NI Act for being proceeded against.The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao was hearing a Plea filed by an ex-Director of the…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 Delhi High Court on Wednesday (23rd September) ruled that a person, who has retired as the Director of the Company, cannot be said to be in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the Company, as contemplated in Section 141 of NI Act for being proceeded against.The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao was hearing a Plea filed by an ex-Director of the company (Alibaba Nabibasha) praying to quash complaint case nos. 2863 of 2019, 2851 of 2019, 2856 of 2019, 2869 of 2019 and 2873 of 2019 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the court of Ms. Alka Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, South Delhi as against the Petitioner.In short, this petition was filed seeking quashing of five complaint cases initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner herein. These complaint cases were primarily grounded on the return of five cheques which were issued on behalf of the respondent No.2 for a total amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs.Facts of the CaseThe proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.1 (small-farmer agribusiness consortium) against the petitioner (Alibaba Nabibasha) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM for short) Saket Courts, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act hereinafter) purportedly on the ground that the petitioner was a Director of the respondent No.2.The cheques in question, all dated December 31, 2018 were issued by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 (small-farmer agribusiness consortium) for a total amount of Rs.45 Lakhs and the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds vide memo dated January 11, 2019.In fact, respondent No.1 (small-farmer agribusiness consortium) had disbursed Venture Capital Funding of Rs.45 Lakhs to R2 and the cheque in question was drawn in favour of respondent No.1 (small-farmer agribusiness consortium) to discharge the liability of the same.Arguments Put forthThe petitioner argued that he ceased to be a Director of the respondent No.2 w.e.f. October 27, 2010, at least eight years prior to the issuance of the cheques in question. His resignation was also notified to the Registrar of Companies / Ministry of Company Affairs by the respondent No.2 by filing Form 32 dated January 04, 2011, which is a public document.It was also submitted that both the events that resulted in the complaints i.e. the agreement and the issuance of the cheques are events, which took place after October 27, 2010 when the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the respondent No.2.The Counsel for the Petitioner alleged that the legal notice dated January 28, 2019 allegedly sent by the respondent No.1 was never received by the petitioner. Even the averments in the complaints filed by the respondent No.1 are sketchy and in no way demonstrate how the complaints are maintainable against the petitioner.It was submitted that the essential ingredients for maintaining a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act are absent with respect to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 has failed to show in what manner and how the petitioner was responsible for the affairs of the respondent No.2.The case of the respondent No.1 was primarily that the petitioner was involved in the discussion before an agreement was executed between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2.However, he did not dispute the Form 32 annexed by the petitioner which depicted that the petitioner ceased to be the Director of respondent No.2.Court’s Analysis and DecisionThe Court took the facts into account and said,”This factum surely suggests that the petitioner having resigned on October 27, 2010 from the respondent No.2 was not the Director when the agreement dated March 03, 2011 was executed. Even the cheque dated December 31, 2018 was also issued much after petitioner’s resignation as the Director of the respondent No.2.”The Court further observed,”In cases where the accused has resigned from the Company and Form 32 has also been submitted with the Registrar of Companies then in such cases if the cheques are subsequently issued and dishonoured, it cannot be said that such an accused is in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the Company, as contemplated in Section 141 of NI Act for being proceeded against.”The Court noted that it was the case of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner was involved in the discussion and represented the respondent No.2 before the agreement was executed on March 03, 2011 but that does not mean even after his resignation he continues to be responsible for the actions of the Company including the issuance of cheques and dishonour of the same which then attracts proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act against him.The Court further noted that it was conscious of the settled position of law that the High Court, while entertaining a petition of this nature shall not consider the defence of the accused or conduct a roving inquiry in respect to the merits of the accusation/s.However, the Court further observed, if the documents filed by the accused / petitioner are beyond suspicion or doubt and upon consideration, demolish the very foundation of the accusation/s levelled against the accused then in such a matter, it is incumbent for the Court to look into the said document/s which are germane even at the initial stage and grant relief to the person concerned under Section 482 CrPC in order to prevent injustice or abuse of process of law.In Court’s opinion the present petition fell within the aforesaid parameters. The Court further referred to the ruling of Apex Court in the Case of Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 351, wherein it was held,”A Director, whose resignation has been accepted by the company and that has been duly notified to the Registrar of Companies, cannot be made accountable and fastened with liability for anything done by the company after the acceptance of his resignation. The words “every person who, at the time the offence was committed”, occurring in Section 141(1) of the NI Act are not without significance and these words indicate that criminal liability of a Director must be determined on the date the offence is alleged to have been committed.”The Court also cited the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna v. Upper India Steel Manufacturing & Engineering Company Limited (2018) 14 SCC 202, wherein the Court had ruled,”For making a Director of a Company liable for the offences committed by the Company under Section 141 of the Act, there must be specific averments against the Director showing as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company.”The Court concluded that mere repetition of the phraseology of Section 141 of NI Act that the accused is in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the Company may not be sufficient and facts stating as to how the accused was so responsible must be averred.Lastly, the Court directed that the present petition needs to be allowed and the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner through complaint cases Nos. 2863 of 2019, 2851 of 2019, 2856 of 2019, 2869 of 2019 and 2873 of 2019 under Section 138 of the NI Act, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, and the resultant proceedings including summons issued thereon be quashed. The petition was thus, disposed of.Case Details:Case Title: Alibaba Nabibasha v. Small Farmers Agri-Busines Consortium & Ors.Case No.: CRL. M.C. 1602/2020, CRL. M.A. 9935/2020Quorum: Justice V. Kameswar RaoAppearance: Advocate V. M. Kannan (for the Petitioner); Advocate Punit Gaur (for R-1).Click Here To Download Judgment[Read Judgment] Next Story
What is a disability?On 30 Jan 2001 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. Abadeh,a telephone operator, suffered permanent hearing loss and tinnitus in his leftear after receiving a sudden, high-pitched noise through his headset. He alsodeveloped post traumatic stress disorder. Abadeh brought a disabilitydiscrimination claim and the tribunal had to establish whether Abadeh was”disabled” within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act. Thetribunal considered four medical reports, two for each of the parties. BT’sreports were prepared by M. The tribunal held that although Abadeh had animpairment which adversely affected his ability to carry out normal day-to-dayactivities the effects of the impairment were not substantial. Accordingly,Abadeh was not disabled. Abadehappealed. The EAT found that the tribunal had been over-influenced by M’sopinion and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal. Interestingly, the EATalso held that the effects of medical treatment (Abadeh’s ongoingpsychotherapy) should be taken into account if the medical evidence showed thatcontinuing treatment brought a permanent improvement. Abadehv British Telecommunications, IDS Brief 675, EAT Related posts:No related photos.