Law Shastra

In pursuance of clause (3) of article 348 of the Constitution of India, the following translation in English of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 (Mah. Ord. XXV of 2018), is hereby published under the authority of the Governor. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra, RAJENDRA G. BHAGWAT, I/c. Secretary (Legislation) to Government, Law and Judiciary Department. [Translation in English of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society (Third Amendment), Ordinance, 2018 (Mah. Ord. XXV of 2018), published under the authority of the Governor]. ——————— RNI No. MAHENG /2009/35528 ¦ÉÉMÉ +É`ö---142--1 (1) 2 ¨É½þÉ®úɹ]Åõ ¶ÉɺÉxÉ ®úÉVÉ{ÉjÉ, +ºÉÉvÉÉ®úhÉ ¦ÉÉMÉ +É`ö, +ÉìC]õÉä¤É®ú 30, 2018/EòÉÌiÉEò 8, ¶ÉEäò 1940 2. In section 73CB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the principal Act”), to sub-section (11), after the existing proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :— “Provide

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 29.11.2018 DELIVERED ON: 06.12.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.23427 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.27342 of 2018 The Management of SNY Autotech Pvt Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Survey No.297, 300, 301, Sugamtharumpedu Village Road, Irrungattukotai, Sriperumbudur Taluk - 602 117. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector of Police, C1 Police Station, Sriperumbudur - 602 105. 2.United Labour Federation, 149, Thambu Chetty Street, C.J.Complex, 4th Floor, Chennai - 600 001. .. Respondents PRAYER: To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to enable the willing workmen, contract workmen, staff, officers and other managerial personnel and customers to enter and exit the factory premises, to enable the petitioner to send materials to its http://www.judis.nic.in 2 customers, to receive the materials including raw materials

1 ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.No.171266/2018 in SLP(C)No.26186/2018 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).26185-26228/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-08-2018 in W.P.(C)Nos.8125/2016, 12088/2016, 2658/2017, 3360/2017, 3385/ 2017, 3684/2017, 3792/2017, 3987/2017, 4007/2017, 4080/2017, 4102/ 2017, 4103/2017, 4106/2017, 4446/2017, 4493/2017, 4867/2017, 4934/ 2017, 4998/2017, 5013/2017, 5026/2017, 5199/2017, 5200/2017, 5214/ 2017, 5217/2017, 5218/2017, 5753/2017, 5779/2017, 5933/2017, 6078/ 2017, 6155/2017, 6794/2017, 6815/2017, 6841/2017, 6990/2017, 7012/ 2017, 7141/2017, 7760/2017, 8229/2017, 8622/2017, 9099/2017, 9187/ 2017, 9221/2017, 9446/2017 & 7495/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI ETC.ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS FLT LT. RAJAN DHALL CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS.ETC.ETC.Respondent(s

Quite Interesting but a fair and enlightening Judgement - US Court SUPREME COURT FINDS INJURY AROSE IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AFTER EMPLOYEE QUIT JOB. PUBLISHED ON DEC 1, 2017 AT 3:23 PM IN FIRM NEWS By: Connor Sestak In a case of first impression, the Tennessee Supreme Court Special Workers Compensation Panel (“Panel”) in Duck v. Cox Oil Co.,  2017 Tenn. LEXIS 734 (June 19, 2017), found that Employee’ injury, which occurred immediately after she announced that she was quitting, arose in the course and scope of her employment. Procedurally, after the claim was denied, the Employee filed a Request for Expedited Hearing regarding medical benefits. She asked for a ruling based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing, as the parties did not contest the facts of the case. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims heard the case based solely on the available affidavits and records. The issue presented was whether Employee was likely to prevail at trial on

i THE PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION BILL, 2018 CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement.—................................................................................ 1 2. Application of the Act to processing of personal data.—........................................................ 1 3. Definitions.— In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, —...................................... 2 CHAPTER II DATA PROTECTION OBLIGATIONS 4. Fair and reasonable processing.— ........................................................................................... 6 5. Purpose limitation.— ............................................................................................................... 6 6. Collection limitation. —. ......................................................................................................... 7 7. Lawful processing.—.........................................................................................................