Skip to main content

Farm Laws 2020: Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi meets President; Priyanka taken into custody during Protests

 Delhi Police has taken Congress leaders Priyanka Gandhi and others into custody as the Rahul Gandhi-led Congress delegation was marching to the Rashtrapati Bhawan on Thursday morning to submit a memorandum of 2 crore signatures against the Centre’s farm reform laws.


Congress' march to Rashtrapati Bhavan was stopped by police. Rahul Gandhi proceeded to the Rashtrapati Bhawan to meet President Ram Nath Kovind with the signatures against farm laws and said the farmers will not budge from Delhi borders till the farm laws are repealed.


Coming out after meeting President Kovind, Rahul Gandhi said, "The Opposition stands with farmers. The protesting farmers will not stop the protest till the laws are repealed." He also said there is no democracy in India.


As the march was stopped, Priyanka Gandhi said, "Any dissent against this government is classified as having elements of terror. We are undertaking this march to voice our support for the farmers."


Priyanka Gandhi further said, “We're living in a democracy and they are elected MPs. They have the right to meet the President and they should be allowed. What is the problem with that? Government is not ready to listen to voices of lakhs of farmers camping at borders.”After the meeting with the President, Rahul Gandhi said, "I want to tell PM Modi that farmers will not go back home if there's no repeal of the farm laws. The Centre should call a joint session of Parliament and repeal the laws. All opposition parties are with the farmers."


"No permission has been granted for Congress' march to Rashtrapati Bhavan today. However, three leaders, who have appointment at Rashtrapati Bhavan, will be allowed to go," Additional DCP (New Delhi) Deepak Yadav had said on Thursday morning.


Priyanka Gandhi and other Congress leaders were detained and taken on a bus by police as they did not have permission for the protest march in Delhi.The Additional DCP said Section 144 has been imposed in New Delhi area due to Covid-19 and no gatherings are allowed

.ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS"



We are India’s Leading Law Firm



“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.




–    DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA (ADVOCATE, FOUNDER-LEXIS AND COMPANY).



Get in Touch


LEXIS AND COMPANY.


C/O: DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA.



OFFICE: A1B/26, JANAKPURI, GROUND FLOOR,



NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.


INDIA.



lexisandcompany@gmail.com


CALL: +91-9830333388.































































































































































































































Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more