Another journalist murdered in Somalia, 16th this year

first_img RSF_en SomaliaAfrica to go further Organisation Help by sharing this information Reporters Without Borders is saddened to learn that Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas, a young TV journalist based in Las Anod, in the breakaway northwestern territory of Somaliland, was gunned down as he returned home yesterday.Employed by privately-owned Universal Television, Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas was shot several times in the head by gunmen who have yet to be identified. He was the 16th journalist to be killed this year in Somalia.”As a result of this grim death toll rising week by week, Somalia now ranks alongside Syria as one of the two deadliest countries in the world for journalists in 2012,” Reporters Without Borders said.”Yesterday’s tragedy highlighted the fact that journalists are exposed to appalling dangers in the rest of the country as well as the capital, Mogadishu. There is an increasingly urgent need for the authorities to take measures to protect journalists against both armed militias and officials who try to silence news media.”The political and security situation is very tense in Somaliland and journalists are often the direct victims of the local government’s desire to control the circulation of information.Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas and two of his colleagues were briefly detained on 12 October for broadcasting programmes presenting Somali Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon in a favourable light. Many other arbitrary arrests of journalists have taken place in Las Anod.The comedian Abdi Jeylani Malaq, a Universal Television colleague of Ilyas, was gunned down in similar circumstances in Mogadishu in AugustPhoto : Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas Receive email alerts February 24, 2021 Find out more News RSF requests urgent adoption of moratorium on arrests of journalists Follow the news on Somaliacenter_img News SomaliaAfrica Radio reporter gunned on city street in central Somalia News RSF and NUSOJ call for release of a journalist held in Somalia’s Puntland region News October 24, 2012 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Another journalist murdered in Somalia, 16th this year March 2, 2021 Find out more January 8, 2021 Find out morelast_img read more

DermTech Management to Present at the BTIG Virtual MedTech, Digital Health, Life Science and…

first_img LA JOLLA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 3, 2021– DermTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: DMTK) (“DermTech”), a leader in precision dermatology enabled by a non-invasive skin genomics platform, announced today that DermTech management will present at the BTIG Virtual MedTech, Digital Health, Life Science & Diagnostic Tools Conference on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Interested parties may access a live webcast of the presentation and, for 90 days following the BTIG Conference, an archived webcast of the presentation through the “Investor Relations” section of DermTech’s website at: About DermTech: DermTech is the leading genomics company in dermatology and is creating a new category of medicine, precision dermatology, enabled by our non-invasive skin genomics platform. DermTech’s mission is to transform dermatology with our non-invasive skin genomics platform, to democratize access to high quality dermatology care, and to improve the lives of millions. DermTech provides genomic analysis of skin samples collected non-invasively using an adhesive patch rather than a scalpel. DermTech markets and develops products that facilitate the early detection of skin cancers, and is developing products that assess inflammatory diseases and customize drug treatments. For additional information on DermTech, please visit DermTech’s investor relations site at: Forward-Looking Statements: This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The expectations, estimates, and projections of DermTech may differ from its actual results and consequently, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Words such as “expect,” “estimate,” “project,” “budget,” “forecast,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “believes,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, expectations with respect to: DermTech’s plans to attend investor conferences, and the performance, patient benefits, cost-effectiveness, commercialization and adoption of DermTech’s products and the market opportunity therefor. These forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from the expected results. Most of these factors are outside of the control of DermTech and are difficult to predict. Factors that may cause such differences include, but are not limited to: (1) the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against DermTech; (2) DermTech’s ability to obtain additional funding to develop and market its products; (3) the existence of favorable or unfavorable clinical guidelines for DermTech’s tests; (4) the reimbursement of DermTech’s tests by Medicare and private payors; (5) the ability of patients or healthcare providers to obtain coverage of or sufficient reimbursement for DermTech’s products; (6) DermTech’s ability to grow, manage growth and retain its key employees; (7) changes in applicable laws or regulations; (8) the market adoption and demand for DermTech’s products and services together with the possibility that DermTech may be adversely affected by other economic, business, and/or competitive factors; and (9) other risks and uncertainties included in (x) the “Risk Factors” section of the most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by DermTech with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and (y) other documents filed or to be filed by DermTech with the SEC. DermTech cautions that the foregoing list of factors is not exclusive. You should not place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. DermTech does not undertake or accept any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions, or circumstances on which any such statement is based. View source version on CONTACT: DermTech Sarah Dion [email protected] 858.450.4222Westwicke Partners IR Caroline Corner, PhD [email protected] 415.202.5678 KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: ONCOLOGY MEDICAL SUPPLIES MEDICAL DEVICES HEALTH GENETICS BIOTECHNOLOGY SOURCE: DermTech, Inc. Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/03/2021 04:01 PM/DISC: 02/03/2021 04:01 PM Local News Twitter Pinterest Pinterest Previous articleMcCarthy condemns Greene’s remarks but criticizes DemocratsNext articleXiaomi’s neueste Luftaufladung und G9 Staubsauger Premiere Digital AIM Web Support DermTech Management to Present at the BTIG Virtual MedTech, Digital Health, Life Science and Diagnostic Tools Conference Facebookcenter_img WhatsApp Facebook TAGS  By Digital AIM Web Support – March 4, 2021 WhatsApp Twitterlast_img read more

Intuit CFO Michelle Clatterbuck to Present at Morgan Stanley Technology Virtual Conference

first_img Previous articleOpsCruise Emerges From StealthNext articleMogo Announces Closing of US$54 Million Registered Direct Offering Priced At-the-Market Digital AIM Web Support Twitter Pinterest Pinterest WhatsApp Intuit CFO Michelle Clatterbuck to Present at Morgan Stanley Technology Virtual Conference WhatsApp MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 24, 2021– Michelle Clatterbuck, chief financial officer of Intuit (Nasdaq: INTU), will present at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media and Telecom Virtual Conference on Mar 2. The presentation will begin at 9:30 a.m. Pacific time (12:30 p.m. Eastern time) and will be available live via audio webcast on Intuit’s investor relations website at A replay of the webcast will be available approximately 24 hours after the presentation ends. ABOUT INTUIT: Intuit is a global technology platform that helps our customers and communities overcome their most important financial challenges. Serving millions of customers worldwide with TurboTax, QuickBooks, Credit Karma and Mint, we believe that everyone should have the opportunity to prosper and we work tirelessly to find new, innovative ways to deliver on this belief. Please visit us for the latest news and information about Intuit and its brands and find us on social. View source version on CONTACT: Investors Lisa Patterson Intuit Inc. 650-944-2713 lisa—[email protected] Media Kali Fry Intuit Inc. 650-944-3036 kali—[email protected] KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATA MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE FINANCE INTERNET ACCOUNTING SOURCE: Intuit Inc. Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/24/2021 07:42 PM/DISC: 02/24/2021 07:42 PM By Digital AIM Web Support – April 6, 2021 Facebook TAGS  Local NewsBusiness Facebook Twitterlast_img read more

Performance Bank Guarantees: The Linchpin Of Commercial Transactions [Part III]

first_imgColumnsPerformance Bank Guarantees: The Linchpin Of Commercial Transactions [Part III] Ragini Agarwal26 Sep 2020 11:13 PMShare This – xThis series of blog posts shall recount the law on evolution of performance bank guarantee in India. It shall cover the meaning of bank guarantee as distinguished from indemnity and letter of credit, and the legal framework governing performance bank guarantees in India in Part 1; the types of bank guarantees and character of such guarantees in Part 2; and finally, the exceptions and…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?LoginThis series of blog posts shall recount the law on evolution of performance bank guarantee in India. It shall cover the meaning of bank guarantee as distinguished from indemnity and letter of credit, and the legal framework governing performance bank guarantees in India in Part 1; the types of bank guarantees and character of such guarantees in Part 2; and finally, the exceptions and rules concerning invocation of bank guarantees in Part 3. Invocations and Encashment “[C]ommitments of banks must be honoured free from interference by the courts.” Justice Oza, U.P Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) Since the character of performance bank guarantees is independent of the underlying contract (see Part 2/3), at the time the invocation of bank guarantees is sought to be injuncted, courts cannot go into the question of whether there was breach of contract etc. If the invocation of guarantee is in the manner specified in the contract, banks are obligated to honour the guarantee, even if the amount is disputed. The beneficiary’s decision on the quantum suffices. In case of unconditional bank guarantees, the ordinary principles of grant of injunction with the three pronged test, viz., prima facie case in favour, balance of convenience and irretrievable injury, as specified in Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not looked at. Bank guarantees stand on a different footing and the ordinary rule is that trading operations should not be jettisoned, and the faith of the people in the efficacy of the banking transactions should not be eroded or brought to disbelief [Ansal Engineering v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (1996)]. Courts have evolved two narrow grounds which, if proven to exist in the facts and circumstances of the case, would entitle the applicant for an injunction. A. Exceptions to Invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee The application of exceptions originated from the law on letter of credit which was applied to performance bank guarantees as well [See, UCO Bank vs. Bank of India, (1981) and Centax (India) Ltd. v. Vinmar Impex Inc. (1986) applied in U.P Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (“Singh Consultants case”) (1988)]. The above Singh Consultants case was one of the first cases to lay down the two exceptions of: Egregious fraud; and Irretrievable injury and injustice to determine whether grant of injunction against performance bank guarantee was justified. This was reiterated in the later 2019 Supreme Court case of Standard Chartered v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd & Ors. (2019).[1] It may be noted that the act of a beneficiary in not invoking guarantee does not act as a bar in later invoking the guarantee. Let us understand the two grounds as specified for invoking guarantees. 1. Egregious Fraud: Fraud as an exception to invoking guarantee is based on the maxim exturpi causa non oritur actio i.e. a party cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongful act. Here, the fraud must be on the part of the beneficiary. Fraud has been defined under §17, Indian Contract Act, 1872 as any act committed by a party, or with his connivance, or by his agent, to deceive the other party or his agent or to induce him to enter into a contract. When it comes to bank guarantees, the fraud must be egregious, i.e. go to the root of the matter to vitiate the contract of guarantee. Mere existence of dispute between parties cannot amount to fraud and become a ground for restraining enforcement of guarantee. It has been argued that fraud vitiating the bank guarantee is required to have a nexus with the acts of the parties prior to entering in the contract, however, in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Tarapore & Co. (1996) it was clarified that the subsequent conduct of the beneficiary as well, could lead to a conclusion of fraud. To justify injunction, the fraud must be an established fraud and not mere speculation. This was held by Sir John Donaldson, M.R. in Bolivinter Oil SA v. Chase Manhattan Bank NA as quoted with approval in the Singh Consultants case.[2] To be successfully argued, such a fraud must of a nature in relation to the bank guarantees or have a bearing on the invocation of the bank guarantees, and must also be a fraud to the knowledge of the bank (¶53). In the case of Mercator Oil & Gas Limited v. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (2019), Bombay High Court refused to entertain the argument that there was fraud committed when the respondent had merely taken a decision in the best commercial interests of the project. Vague allegations of fraud would not amount to fraud of egregious nature, vitiating the entire transaction [Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. (2008), ¶25] 2. Special Equities: Special equity is a broad term and denotes existence of special circumstances that justify the injunction against performance bank guarantees. It was coined in the Indian context in the Calcutta High Court judgment of Texmaco Ltd. v. State Bank of India (1979). However, mere existence of special equities does not suffice to justify an injunction, it must be accompanied by irretrievable injustice and harm, as was held in Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome (1994). Here, the American case of Itek Corporation v. The First National Bank of Boston[3] was quoted wherein the realization of bank guarantees when Iran was undergoing turmoil was not permitted as it would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff. In Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd & Anr., (1997), this standard was clarified and it was stated that it must be decisively established that there is no possibility of recovery based on principles of restitution, if the guarantee is allowed to be invoked. In cases where contract is not completed owing to war like situations in foreign nations, injunction against invocation is granted based on the ground of special equities. In BHEL v. Egyptian Electricity Transmission Co. (2020), where majority of the supply under the contract had been done and only a miniscule remained which could not be completed due to war-like situation in Egypt, the Delhi High Court concluded that this amounted to force majeure. Special equities were said to exist since the plaintiff would not be able to recover the amounts under guarantee, if encashed, on account of the disturbance in Egypt, and hence the balance of convenience also lay in its favour. This inability to recover money in case of wrong invocation also played a role in grant of injunction in BHEL v. Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (2018). It is seen from the above that special equities are said to exist not merely on the happening of a force majeure event, but if the event is also qualified by an additional causal link of irretrievable injustice being caused to the party on account of the situation of special equity. Note: The question of whether the “irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice” exception is used interchangeably with “special equities” is academically unclear, although in practice interchangeable usage does seem to be the case. In General Electric Technical Services Comp. Inc. vs Punj Sons (P) Ltd. (1988), for example, the grounds for exception were noted to be “fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties” (emphasis supplied). In Indu Projects Ltd. v. UOI (2013), the Delhi High Court held that the expression irretrievable injury or irretrievable injustice have been used interchangeably with expression special equities. However, the Apex Court in the judgment of Standard Chartered Bank v. Heavy Engineering Corporation (2019) stated the grounds to be “fraud, irretrievable injustice and special equities” (¶26) thereby denoting the grounds of “irretrievable injustice” and “special equities” to be distinct from each other. The treatment of injunction in COVID-19 situation is analysed in Section C of this article. B. Other exceptions “Unjust enrichment” was argued as a ground for grant of injunction in Klen & Marshall Manufacturers v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff argued that the invocation of bank guarantee by the defendant was with the intent of unjustly enriching himself at the expense of the plaintiff. The Court dismissed the petition since the law on contractual obligations under bank guarantee was well settled and relying upon Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1997) stated that ground of unjust enrichment would not be a valid one, to injunct the performance of the guarantee. In BSES Ltd. v. Fenner India Ltd. (2006), it was argued before the Supreme Court that an injunction must be granted against invocation on grounds of “lack of good faith” or “enforcing with an oblique purpose”. The basis for this ground was found in the U.K. case of TTI Team Telecom Ltd. v. Hutchison 3G UK Ltd. (2003) where it was said: “The basis for a contention of a breach of faith must be established by clear evidence even for the purposes of interim relief. A breach of faith can arise in such situations as: a failure by the beneficiary to provide an essential element of the underlying contract on which the bond depends; a misuse by the beneficiary of the guarantee by failing to act in accordance with the purpose for which it was given; a total failure of consideration in the underlying contract; a threatened call by the beneficiary for an unconscionable ulterior motive; or a lack of an honest or bona fide belief by the beneficiary that the circumstances, such as poor performance, against which a performance bond had been provided, actually exist.” While it was clarified that disputes with respect to breach of contract, a determination of a contract for cause, a repudiation of a contract or the incurring of loss have occurred, where these are events covered by the performance guarantee would not be allowed to be brought under the grounds of breach of faith, this ground of “breach of faith” was wider than the ambit of fraud. Further, the Appellant also placed reliance upon a Singapore case of Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte. Ltd. v. Sum Cheong Piling Pte. Ltd. (2002) where it was held that invoking a performance guarantee for an oblique purpose was not permissible. Using it as a “bargaining chip” or a “deterrent” or in an “abusive manner” so that it would be an unconscionable invocation, would not be permissible. The Supreme Court, while appreciating the tenor of the arguments held that the arguments were unsustainable in light of the long line of judgments which had clearly held that there were only the two grounds for stopping the encashment of guarantees. Creating a third ground would not be permissible. The judgment established that unless the challenge to invocation could be pigeon-holed into one of the two exceptions to invocations, the unconditional bank guarantee would be allowed to be performed. Notably, while invocation under “breach of faith” was specifically dismissed in BSES v. Fenner case, special equities were held to exist by the Delhi High Court when the invocation is done in a distrustful manner. For instance, in Leighton India Contractors v. DLF Ltd. before the Delhi High Court on May 13, 2020, the respondent had already received the amount after invocation of performance bank guarantees. Going into the question of injunction at that juncture was fruitless, however, the Court took into account the clauses of the contract and the bank guarantee, noted the fact that the invocation was done in a distrustful manner, and held that a case of special equities existed. The facts of the case showed that the parties had been working with each other in a collaborative manner and that the communication by the respondent did not show an intention to invoke the guarantee or to terminate the contract. To protect the interests of the petitioner, the Court ordered that the amount of performance bank guarantees be placed in an interest bearing fixed deposit on auto renewal mode. In another case before the Delhi High Court, Tecnimont Private Limited v. ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. on 20 June, 2020 (Del HC), the invocation of guarantee with the intention to subvert an arbitral award was held to be invalid. C. Analysis of COVID-19 as a situation of Special Equity to injunct invocation The pandemic that has affected contractual obligations and economy world over has been argued by parties to be a force majeure event which justifies the injunction of bank guarantees as a condition of special equities exists. Courts have been slow to prima facie grant injunction only in light of the pandemic. Force majeure has been narrowly interpreted in light of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Energy Watchdog (2017) wherein the Court declared that it was not the domain of the Courts to absolve the parties from performing their part in the contract. In Haliburton Offshore Services v. Vedanta Ltd (2020), the Delhi High Court further clarified that mere existence of COVID-19 would not justify every breach or non-performance of the parties. “The Court would have to assess the conduct of the parties prior to the outbreak, the deadlines that were imposed in the contract, the steps that were to be taken, the various compliances that were required to be made and only then assess as to whether, genuinely, a party was prevented or is able to justify its non- performance due to the epidemic/pandemic.” (¶62) In Indrajit Power Private Limited v. UOI (2020) as well, the Delhi High Court interpreted adopted a strict approach to force majeure and noting that the party had failed to fulfil its obligations even before the pandemic, refused to grant an injunction. It may be noted that in case of a dispute between the parties with respect to whether a force majeure clause was properly invoked or not, the arbitral tribunal has the final jurisdiction to determine such a question [Global Steel Philippines v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (2009)]. Courts refuse to intervene in contractual obligations of the parties even for interim relief under the broad ambit of §9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Rashmi Cement Ltd. v. World Metals & Alloys (Fzc) (2020)]. The Bombay High Court, in Standard Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. G. S. Global Corp & Ors. (2020), outright refused to allow the limited period of lockdown to allow the petitioner to resile from its contractual obligations. However, where the party is unable to perform the contract on account of force majeure conditions, courts have allowed grant of injunction against invocation of bank guarantee. For instance, in Transrail Lighting Limited v. Public Electricity Corporation Republic of Yemen (2020), the plaintiff was unable to perform the contract on account of civil unrest in Yemen and the project had not been completed because the situation of civil unrest situation in Yemen had remained unchanged for five years. Here, injunction was granted. The position that seems to emerge from the above holdings of various courts is that while the existence of the pandemic may create an unviable situation for performance of contracts, the obligation of honouring the unconditional bank guarantee will not be discharged unless special equities are shown to exist within the facts and circumstances of the case. The pandemic by itself will not lead to a free getaway for parties from honouring contractual obligations. There must be an accompanying fact of irretrievable injustice or injury to the applicant in case of invocation of guarantee. This is a sound principle. D. Potential Cases of Departure from Established Principles The 2016 Supreme Court case of Gangotri Enterprises Limited v. Union of India & Ors. is particularly controversial. In this case, the appellant contended that the performance bank guarantee was not liable to be invoked since the works had been completed to the satisfaction of the respondent evident by the issue of the completion certificate. Among other grounds pleaded to stop the encashment of guarantee, one was that arbitration proceedings were pending to decide the amount payable for damages. The Supreme Court relied upon Union of India v. Raman Iron Factory (1974) to hold that one party could not be the sole judge to quantify the amount payable and that the phrase “sum due” denoted a sum for which there is an existing obligation to pay in praesenti. It may be pertinent to point out that encashment of bank guarantees was not an issue in Raman Iron Factory case. The Supreme Court in Gangotri Enterprises found that the amount being claimed did not relate to the amount for which guarantee was given. The amount being claimed under the guarantee was in the nature of damages which was still pending adjudication in the arbitration proceedings. Since the sum was neither due in praesenti, nor payable, but was disputed, there existed no right to encash the guarantee (¶42). Hence, the Supreme Court went on to hold that whether or not injunction can be granted must be decided taking into account facts involved in each case and that the lower courts had erred in dismissing plea to grant an injunction. This decision is controversial since it seems to militate against established principles on character and invocation of bank guarantee, namely that the beneficiary shall be sole determinant of the sum payable, and that the bank cannot demand proof of liability if the invocation is done as per the terms of guarantee contract (See Part 2). In support of the decision, at the same time, it may be argued that the turning point of this case was the fact that the contract on which the bank guarantee had been based was already completed. In 2017, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in NCC Limited v. Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited and Ors. stated that the Gangotri Enterprises case seemed to be bad in law and ran contrary to the three judge bench decision in Ansal Engineering v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (1996). It also noted that reliance upon Raman Iron Factory case by the Supreme Court was misplaced. Previously, when in the case of Tarapore & Co. (1996), the High Court had relied upon the Raman Iron Factory case to hold that one party could not be the sole judge of the quantification of sum payable in the context of bank guarantee, the Supreme Court had allowed the appeal against the High Court decision. It had stated: “The High Court also committed a grave error in restraining the appellant from invoking bank guarantees on the ground that on India only reasonable amount ca be awarded by way of damages even when the parties to the contract have provided for liquidated damages and that a term in a bank guarantees making the beneficiary the sole judge on the question of breach of contract and the extent of loss or damages would be invalid and that no amount can be said to be due till and adjudication in that behalf is made either by a court on an arbitrator, as the case may be. In taking that view the High Court has overlooked the correct position that a bank guarantees is a independent and distinct contract between the bank and the beneficiary and is not qualified by the underlying transaction and the primary contract between the person at whose instance the bank guarantee is given and the beneficiary.” Thus, reliance upon Raman Iron Factory case by the Supreme Court in Gangotri Enterprises being based upon a false premise, the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to grant injunction against invocation of bank guarantee. In Larsen and Toubro v. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2019) as well, the Delhi High Court dismissed reliance on Gangotri Enterprises case and following the established law on bank guarantees did not grant an injunction on the same. It may be noted that the practice of not following the established law on guarantees has been deprecated by the Supreme Court on a previous occasion. E. Release from Performance Bank Guarantee Once the opposite side is fully satisfied regarding the performance of the contract and its execution, the release from guarantee is granted.[4] Where a bank guarantee stands discharged on account of its own contractual terms, it cannot be invoked. This summarises the evolution of law on performance guarantees.Views are personal only. [1] See also, U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sumac International Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 568; Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd v. Coal Tar Refining Company, AIR 2007 SC 2798; Adani Agri Fresh Ltd. v. Mahboob Sharif, (2016) 14 SCC 517; Gujarat Maritime Board v. Larsen and Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 46. [2] (1984) 1 All ER 351. [3] 566 Fed Supp. 1210. [4] Marathon Electric Motors (India) v. North Eastern Electric Power, 2011 SCCOnline Del. 1208. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Traffic build-up following collision close to LUH

first_img Pinterest Google+ Previous articleInvestment announced for seafood support projects in DonegalNext articleHealth professionals meeting to discuss Paul Harte’s future care News Highland Facebook By News Highland – July 16, 2018 Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Google+ Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows WhatsApp Pinterest Twitter Facebookcenter_img Twitter WhatsApp Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Homepage BannerNews DL Debate – 24/05/21 News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th There are severe traffic delays being reported on the Kilmacrennan Road as a result of a road crash close to Letterkenny University Hospital.Gardai and other services are at the scene, and significant traffic build ups are being reported.Motorists are being urged to avoid the area if possible. Traffic build-up following collision close to LUH Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programme RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHORlast_img read more

Brundidge hopefuls headed for runoffs: Mayor, District 3 race remain unresolved

first_img By Jaine Treadwell Remember America’s heroes on Memorial Day Gerald Holland is challenging Baxter for the District 1 council seat.Holland is a newcomer to city politics and said he got a late start in the primary but plans to make up for lost time in the run-off.“The field has been narrowed down and I’m still around and that is very humbling for me,” Holland said. “Running for the city council gave me the opportunity to get out and talk with people and to meet people that I didn’t even know live in Brundidge and or in my district.”Holland said he plans to put his best foot forward as he goes back out on the campaign trail.“I want those in my district to know that serving them will be a privilege,” Holland said. “I want to be the voice of the people in District 1 on the city council. I want to hear their concerns and their ideas so I can take them to the council.”Holland said it is important to have transparency in city government.“It will be a goal of mine to let the people of District 1 know what is going on in city government,” he said. “I will keep them informed and involved.”Incumbent District 2 Council Member Alexandria Griffin will face Latisher Hall in the October 6 run-off for the Brundidge City Council District 2 seat.In November 2019, Griffin was appointed to serve on the council to fill the unexpired term of her dad, the late Arthur Lee Griffin. While awaiting the results of Tuesday’s election, Griffin was mistakenly told that she had lost the election. She does not want to experience that feeling again so that is added incentive for her to get out and work even harder to retain the District 2 seat on the council.“I’ve learned a lot during the time I’ve served on the council and I’m still learning,” Griffin said. “To be in the runoff has shown me that people believe in me and that motivates me even more.”Griffin said she looks forward to another opportunity to get out and talk with the people in District 2.“I want to know more about their ideas and their concerns,” she said. “I’m encouraged by the large number of people that ran for mayor and council. It shows that Brundidge residents are concerned about our town and they want to be a part of helping it grow and prosper.”Latisher Hall ventured into politics because she wants to be more involved in her community and have an opportunity to make a greater contribution to the town she loves.Hall said she is excited to have the opportunity to stay in the race and hopes to represent District 2 as its council member.“I’m going to get back out there and hear more of what people have to say about our town,” Hall said. “I want to give them a chance for their voices to be heard. I can’t move mountains but, as a member of the Brundidge City Council, I can be the voice for the people of District 2.”Hall said she was both surprised and disappointed at the number of votes cast in Tuesday’s election.“With 22 candidates running for office, I expected a larger voter response,” she said. “We all need to be more involved in making the changes that will improve our city. We need to work together and pull together. I am a team player and I will work with others to accomplish what needs to be done to grow our city.”The runoffs for the municipal elections will be on October 6. The Brundidge Municipal Election on Tuesday closed with only two of the six races set in stone.Incumbent District 4 Council Member Byron Gaynor retained his seat, while Marilyn Rodgers, a newcomer to city politics, was elected to the District 5 council seat.The resolution of two provisional ballots on Monday will dictate the outcome of the mayor’s race and the District 3 council race. Baxter said what she has learned over the past eight years in office has equipped her for more informed continued service.“A lot of positive things have been accomplished in the past eight years,” she said. “The city has benefitted greatly from industrial growth. Several stores have opened recently downtown and the city’s business incubator will soon be open. The City of Brundidge is moving forward.”Baxter said she loves Brundidge and wants to see it grow and prosper.“The city has several projects underway that I have been a part of,” she said.  “I want to continue to see them through and also be a part of getting several other projects up and going.” Pike County Sheriff’s Office offering community child ID kits Email the author Incumbent Betty Baxter and Gerald Hollard are in a runoff for the District 1 seat and incumbent Alexandria Griffin and Latisher Hall for the District 2 seat. Baxter is seeking a third-term as the council member from District 1.“Serving the people of District 1 for eight years has been a great privilege,” Baxter said. “I have done my best to represent the people of District 1 by attending to their concerns and needs. When I’ve seen something that needed to be brought to the council table that would benefit my district and our community, I would do it. Any time there was anything on the table that was best for all Brundidge, it would get my vote.” Print Article Published 11:11 pm Friday, August 28, 2020 Skip Around the WebMd: Do This Immediately if You Have Diabetes (Watch)Blood Sugar BlasterIf You Have Ringing Ears Do This Immediately (Ends Tinnitus)Healthier LivingWomen Only: Stretch This Muscle to Stop Bladder Leakage (Watch)Patriot Health ZoneHave an Enlarged Prostate? Urologist Reveals: Do This Immediately (Watch)Healthier LivingRemoving Moles & Skin Tags Has Never Been This EasyEssential Health32-second Stretch Ends Back Pain & Sciatica (Watch)Healthier LivingThe content you see here is paid for by the advertiser or content provider whose link you click on, and is recommended to you by Revcontent. As the leading platform for native advertising and content recommendation, Revcontent uses interest based targeting to select content that we think will be of particular interest to you. We encourage you to view your opt out options in Revcontent’s Privacy PolicyWant your content to appear on sites like this?Increase Your Engagement Now!Want to report this publisher’s content as misinformation?Submit a ReportGot it, thanks!Remove Content Link?Please choose a reason below:Fake NewsMisleadingNot InterestedOffensiveRepetitiveSubmitCancelcenter_img Plans underway for historic Pike County celebration Penny Hoarder Issues “Urgent” Alert: 6 Companies Are… Troy falls to No. 13 Clemson Sponsored Content Latest Stories You Might Like Brundidge hopefuls headed for runoffs: Mayor, District 3 race remain unresolved Curtis turns a hobby into a thriving business with watermelons It was a rather hot and humid day in August 2019. Jackson Curtis, a civil engineering student at Auburn, was… read more Book Nook to reopen By The Penny Hoarderlast_img read more

Utah Men’s Basketball Faces Grand Canyon At Wooden Legacy

first_img Written by FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailFULLERTON, Calif.-Friday, Utah men’s basketball resumes play at the Wooden Legacy as they face the Grand Canyon Lopes in the consolation bracket after dropping a 90-79 game to Hawaii Thursday evening.The Utes are 2-0 all-time against the Lopes in a series dating back to 2010 and the winner of this game draws the winner of La Salle and Northwestern to play for fifth place Sunday.The Utes, who are 2-2 on the season, face a 2-3 Lopes squad, coached by former NBA All-Star Dan Majerle.The Lopes face the Utes in the consolation bracket Friday after dropping an 82-75 game to Seton Hall.The Utes are led by sophomore forward Donnie Tillman, who averages 13 points and 8 rebounds per game this season.The Lopes are paced by Italian national center Alessandro Lever, who posts 13.6 points and 4.6 rebounds per contest. Brad James November 23, 2018 /Sports News – Local Utah Men’s Basketball Faces Grand Canyon At Wooden Legacy Tags: Alessandro Lever/Dan Majerle/Donnie Tillman/Grand Canyon Lopes/Hawaii/La Salle/Northwestern/Seton Hall/Utah Men’s Basketball/Wooden Legacylast_img read more

Reports: Jazz Trade Favors To Pelicans

first_img Written by Associated Press Tags: Derrick Favors/New Orleans Pelicans/Utah Jazz July 1, 2019 /Sports News – Local Reports: Jazz Trade Favors To Pelicans FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailNEW ORLEANS (AP) — A person familiar with the situation says the New Orleans Pelicans have acquired veteran center Derrick Favors from the Utah Jazz in exchange for a pair of second-round draft choices.The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Monday because the deal has not been announced.The Jazz dealt away 6-foot-10 Favors shortly after agreeing to contract terms with free agent center Bojan Bogdanovic, who played for Indiana last season.Favors, who’ll be 28 next season, was the Nets’ first round draft choice in 2010 and was traded during his rookie season to Utah. He brings career averages of 11.6 points, 7.2 rebounds and 1.3 blocks to New Orleans, where he’ll join two other centers — veteran Jahlil Okafor and No. 8 overall draft pick Jaxson Hayes — on the roster. Christian Wood, a 6-10 forward signed by New Orleans late last season, also can play center.last_img read more

Weatherford announces organisational change

first_img Image: Christoph Bausch will step down as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Weatherford. Photo: courtesy of John R Perry/Pixabay Weatherford International plc (OTC-PINK:WFTIQ) announced today that Christoph Bausch will step down as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective November 14, 2019 to pursue other opportunities.  He will remain with the Company through November 30, 2019 to transition his responsibilities.Mark A. McCollum, President and Chief Executive Officer for Weatherford, commented, “On behalf of the Board of Directors and the management team, we are grateful to Christoph for his hard work and leadership, which strengthened the Company’s focus on financial discipline, cash flow generation, and improved cost efficiencies. His tireless efforts in these areas as well as many others served employees and stakeholders well. We will continue to build upon these principles and I am confident that our talented management team will be able to support us through this transition.”Stuart Fraser, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer, will serve as the interim Chief Financial Officer from November 14, 2019 until January 6, 2020, when the new Chief Financial Officer will begin. Mr. Fraser joined Weatherford in 2015 and has served in various senior financial roles including Vice President and Corporate Controller and Vice President of Finance and Purchasing, Sourcing and Logistics. Prior to joining Weatherford, he served a 19-year career with Schlumberger Ltd., where he held senior financial positions in global and regional capacities in the US, France, Angola, Malaysia, and Indonesia across a number of business segments covering operations, internal audit, taxation, supply chain, and transformation. Stuart is a Chartered Accountant and holds a Bachelor of Business degree from the Edith Cowan University in Australia. Source: Company Press Release Stuart Fraser, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer, will serve as the interim Chief Financial Officer from November 14, 2019 until January 6, 2020last_img read more

A&R posts £16.7 million, 73% sale

first_imgHome » News » A&R posts £16.7 million, 73% sale previous nextProducts & ServicesA&R posts £16.7 million, 73% saleThe Negotiator23rd September 20160622 Views A busy room and confident bidding delivered a strong set of results from Andrews & Roberston’s July auction at The Montcalm Hotel, London, from the 67 lots on offer.The largest lot was a refurbished six bedroom, four floor, double fronted Victorian house in Queens Park, NW6. Guided at £2,800,000 with full vacant possession it sold prior to the auction for £2,826,000. for four contemporary family homes exceeded its £1,300,000 guide price, selling under the hammer for £1,450,000.Other highlights included Lot 37, a freehold two floor semi-detached house in Hammersmith, arranged as two self-contained flats. The gavel went down at £985,000, £285,000 above its guide.Chairman Robin Cripp said, “This was our first auction post referendum and the results show that there is still strong buyer demand across all sectors despite the uncertainties surrounding Brexit. With interest rates remaining low, investors are taking advantage of the opportunities to get a deal in the room. And with auctions being a good indication of the level of market confidence, these results are reason for continued optimism for the remaining auctions of 2016.”Queens Park Victorian property A&R Andrews & Roberstons auction September 23, 2016The NegotiatorWhat’s your opinion? Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.Related articles BREAKING: Evictions paperwork must now include ‘breathing space’ scheme details30th April 2021 City dwellers most satisfied with where they live30th April 2021 Hong Kong remains most expensive city to rent with London in 4th place30th April 2021last_img read more