Kharge strongly opposes BJP's 'One Nation, One Election' slogan

News Network
June 24, 2019

Kalaburagi, Jun 24: Former Congress leader M Mallikarjuna Kharge strongly opposing BJP's 'One Nation, One Election' slogan, said that “it is impossible to adopt this system in federal system like India".

Addressing a press conference here on Monday, Kharge alleged that those who are preaching such slogan have conducted Lok Sabha election in seven phases.

“They (BJP) would simply do what they feel is beneficial to them” he said, adding that conducting elections throughout the country at a time was impossible in the federal system.

Comments

Mr Frank
 - 
Tuesday, 25 Jun 2019

We must add to this slogan One Nation One election One party One EVM.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 24,2020

Mangaluru, Jan 24: The Srushti Kala Vidyalaya will be conferring it's 'Srushti Kalabhushan Award' to ace Yakshagana Bhagvatha Patla Sathish Shetty.

The award ceremony will be held at RV Dental College and Hospital in JP Nagar, Bengaluru on February 2, as part of the decennial celebrations of the Vidyalaya.

Chayapathi Kanchibail, founder of the Vidyalaya, said, "The award is being given to Shetty for his services to promote the art of Yakshagana and for his welfare work through the Yakshadhruva Patla Foundation."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 21,2020

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.

Comments

A.Rahman
 - 
Friday, 22 May 2020

First of all  A Salute To Lawyer One Who Handled This Case Against Carriers Mismanagement Wrong Action.

 

Sure this is the second victory for the lawyer against arriers mismanagement.

 

Over all it is the sign  of a profesional ; qualified  eligble  lawyers efforts and right decision from a capable knowlegable judge. Suit case operating lawyers cannot handle such specilized cases.

They lawyer may handled rest of the vicitms cases or he not. But for his siincere efforts for the past ten years delcares whatn he  is. Am personally met him and  witnessed his court appearance  hope and wish him all the best and success .

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 5,2020

Bengaluru, May 5: The Karnataka excise department booked a case against a wine shop owner in this tech city for allegedly selling more liquor than permitted under the law to a buyer on the first day of shops reopening for business after 40-day lockdown on Monday, an official said on Tuesday.

"We have booked a case against licensed shop owner S. Venkatesh for reportedly selling Indian made liquor (IML) and beer to a buyer on Monday more than he is permitted under the Karnataka Excise Act section 36," Bengaluru South Excise Deputy Commissioner A. Giri told media persons.

The alleged sale came to light when the unidentified customer posted in the social media a receipt showing he bought liquor worth Rs 52,841 from Vanilla Spirit Zone in the city''s south-eastern suburb on Monday afternoon.

"Preliminary investigation revealed that 17.4 litres of IML was sold against the permissible limit of 2.3 litres and 35.1 litres of beer against the legal limit of 18.2 litres," Giri said.

Venkatesh, however, told Giri that the buyer paid for the liquor bought by him and seven of his colleagues at the same time from the shop as they entered together.

"We are investigating to ascertain if Venkatesh violated the license conditions by paying for liquor bought by his friends with him at the same time," Giri added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.