Shortly before the death of St. Nino Bodbe went, 67 died and 347 He was buried in. Mirian king, St. Nino's tomb was constructed of the patron saint - St. George's Cathedral, near the monastery. Over time, the monastery of the nation's education and cultural center of the diocese became the center of Nun. The three-judge panel, to probe allegations of sexual harassment against CJI Ranjan Gogoi, will be headed by Justice SA Bodbe. It includes two Supreme Court judges - Justice NV Ramana and Justice. New Delhi India, January 13 (ANI): The Central government on Wednesday approached the Supreme Court urging to exempt armed forces from the purview of its 2018 judgement of decriminalising the. Vijay Athawale, deputy secretary of Maharashtra Assembly, was responding to a contempt notice issued by SC for threatening to penalise Goswami for approaching the top court. Find & Download Free Graphic Resources for Signahi. 20+ Vectors, Stock Photos & PSD files. Free for commercial use High Quality Images.
Background Information:
Golf balls often leave ‘marks' (damage) when landing on a green. The volume of golfers leaves a large number of damaged areas on the green, which requires repair. Repair is conventionally achieved via golf course maintenance staff and players. Both groups often use a fork-style tool to repair marks, which can result in unintended damage to the turf root structure and greens, upon which successful golf depends. Many golfers, novices, accomplished players, and professionals alike, inadvertently contribute to turf root structure damage through repair technique using a typical fork-style mark repair tool. Large fork blades penetrate deep into the turf root layer, while rocking the forks back from the mark edge (to ‘pull' up soil) tears at roots and damages the turf. The result can be a brown spot at the mark location. Pressing the fork forward into the mark, while an improved technique for root maintenance, also tends to result in deep turf penetration and less than optimal turf and soil replacement. Twisting of the forks leads to additional root structure tearing and longer-lasting damage. Use of fork-style mark repair tools tends to result in uneven repair areas and requires the user to spend additional time to flatten a mark, often with several stabs with rock-and pull/push movements around the mark location. Accordingly, there lies a need for a device that can be effectively used to repair ball marks, with consistent insertion depth and elimination of rocking, to protect the turf root structure.
© Provided by The PrintNew Delhi: Deputy Secretary of the Maharashtra Assembly, Vilas Athawale, told the Supreme Court Tuesday that he did not threaten Republic TV chief Arnab Goswami for approaching the top court against a breach of privilege notice.
Goswami is facing breach of privilege notice for his derogatory remarks against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. His petition, filed under Article 32, claims that the breach of privilege notice issued on 7 September is not maintainable and should be quashed.
Athawale said that he had, on the Speaker's instructions, only asked Goswami to explain why he placed the 'confidential House proceedings' as evidence before the apex court.
The top court had on 6 November issued a contempt notice to the secretary of Maharashtra Assembly for threatening to penalise Goswami for approaching the top court against the breach of privilege notice.
In his affidavit, Athawale said Goswami could not have placed the proceedings before the court without the Speaker's approval under Rule 315 of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960.
Bodbe Tech Help Desk
Rule 315, Athawale's affidavit submitted, says a person who wishes to produce the minutes of the Assembly proceedings, has to first make an application for a certified copy before the Speaker. If permission is granted, only then can the minutes be produced in the top court as evidence.
Also read: Evidence collected in breach of privacy does not make it inadmissible in court: Delhi HC
SC may issue notice to Speaker
Bodbe Tech Helpline
The Supreme Court's 6 November order also said, 'There is no doubt that if a citizen of India is deterred in any way from approaching this court, in the exercise of his right under Article 32, it would amount to a serious interference in the administration of justice in the country.'
The court had then appointed senior advocate Viraj Dattar as amicus curiae so that it can get an independent opinion in the case.
On Tuesday, Athawale's advocate, senior counsel Dushyant Dave argued that no contempt was made out against the deputy secretary. The letter to Goswami, Dave clarified, was issued at the Speaker's instance, and, therefore, Athawale should be discharged.
At this, appearing for Goswami, senior advocate Harish Salve asked for a court's notice against the Speaker. When Dave objected, Chief Justice of India S.A. Bodbe said, 'The Speaker should not argue tomorrow he wasn't heard by this court.'
Dave also mentioned about the Enforcement Directorate's raid at the office of the MLA, on whose complaint the privilege notice was issued. 'Will that be contempt?' Dave said, in response to Salve's suggestion to issue contempt notice to the Speaker as well.
The court, however, adjourned the matter for two weeks because the judges, said the CJI, had not read Athawale's affidavit since it was filed last night.
‘Goswami offered no explanation'
Goswami is facing breach of privilege notice for his derogatory remarks against Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. His petition, filed under Article 32, claims that the breach of privilege notice issued on 7 September is not maintainable and should be quashed.
Athawale said that he had, on the Speaker's instructions, only asked Goswami to explain why he placed the 'confidential House proceedings' as evidence before the apex court.
The top court had on 6 November issued a contempt notice to the secretary of Maharashtra Assembly for threatening to penalise Goswami for approaching the top court against the breach of privilege notice.
In his affidavit, Athawale said Goswami could not have placed the proceedings before the court without the Speaker's approval under Rule 315 of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly Rules, 1960.
Bodbe Tech Help Desk
Rule 315, Athawale's affidavit submitted, says a person who wishes to produce the minutes of the Assembly proceedings, has to first make an application for a certified copy before the Speaker. If permission is granted, only then can the minutes be produced in the top court as evidence.
Also read: Evidence collected in breach of privacy does not make it inadmissible in court: Delhi HC
SC may issue notice to Speaker
Bodbe Tech Helpline
The Supreme Court's 6 November order also said, 'There is no doubt that if a citizen of India is deterred in any way from approaching this court, in the exercise of his right under Article 32, it would amount to a serious interference in the administration of justice in the country.'
The court had then appointed senior advocate Viraj Dattar as amicus curiae so that it can get an independent opinion in the case.
On Tuesday, Athawale's advocate, senior counsel Dushyant Dave argued that no contempt was made out against the deputy secretary. The letter to Goswami, Dave clarified, was issued at the Speaker's instance, and, therefore, Athawale should be discharged.
At this, appearing for Goswami, senior advocate Harish Salve asked for a court's notice against the Speaker. When Dave objected, Chief Justice of India S.A. Bodbe said, 'The Speaker should not argue tomorrow he wasn't heard by this court.'
Dave also mentioned about the Enforcement Directorate's raid at the office of the MLA, on whose complaint the privilege notice was issued. 'Will that be contempt?' Dave said, in response to Salve's suggestion to issue contempt notice to the Speaker as well.
The court, however, adjourned the matter for two weeks because the judges, said the CJI, had not read Athawale's affidavit since it was filed last night.
‘Goswami offered no explanation'
In his affidavit, Athawale implored the top court to not take action against him, for he had discharged his official duties after seeking approval from the Speaker.
He also dismissed the charges that his letter intimated or threatened Goswami, saying similar worded letters have been issued in the past to other individuals as well.
Athawale further provided details of all letters, sent on various dates, asking Goswami to clarify his position on two issues — breach of privilege notice as well as his move to place minutes of the House proceedings before the Supreme Court.
When Goswami did not respond, the Speaker, Athawale said, referred the breach of privilege matter to the Committee of Privileges.
On Dave's request, the bench exempted Athawale from personal appearance on the next date of hearing. Dave said it was difficult for the officer to travel on account of a new set of guidelines issued by the Maharashtra government that requires flyers from Delhi to produce a Covid-19 test.
Also read: Arnab Goswami's swift bail should be the rule for undertrials. Not the exception
