NewsBreaking news100 new jobs announced in LimerickBy Staff Reporter – December 1, 2014 701 Twitter Print Email Linkedin SOME 100 new jobs have been announced in Limerick by Information Technology Shared Services, a Division of Johnson & Johnson Services.The company plans to create the new jobs through the creation of a Development Centre at the National Technology Park, Plassey, Limerick.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Recruitment for the information technology positions will start immediately, and the positions are expected to be filled over the next two years.This investment is supported by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, through IDA Ireland.Making the announcement Minister for Jobs Enterprise and Innovation Richard Bruton, who has met Johnson &Johnson a number of times in Ireland and the USA since taking office, said:“Today’s announcement that Johnson &Johnson, one of the biggest names in thecorporate world, is creating a further 100 jobs in Limerick to add to the 2000 people they already employ across Ireland, is a great boost. Multinational investment plays a key part in our jobs plan, and in recent years we have seen a very strong performance in this area.”Welcoming the announcement, IDA Ireland CEO, Martin Shanahan said:“Limerick is a great place for foreign companies to locate – IDA Ireland will continue to work hard to make sure that the city continues to enjoy investments like this in the future.”Commenting on the announcement Finance Minister Michael Noonan TD said jobcreation is a priority for the Government.“Today’s announcement is another welcome boost for Limerick and further proof that the Governments strategy in relation to job creation is working”. WhatsApp Advertisement Facebook Previous article#Video Seasonal cheer at Lough Gur Christmas villageNext articleIRFU target talent with sevens X Factor Staff Reporterhttp://www.limerickpost.ie
ColumnsThe Metamorphosis Of Right Of Hindu Women In Ancestral Property K Indu Priya8 May 2020 9:12 PMShare This – x”The law must be stable yet it cannot stand still” -Roscoe Pound The year 2005 saw tremendous change in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A change which was not only progressive but also imbibed the essence of right to equality as guaranteed in the Constitution. It provided for the right of a…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?Login”The law must be stable yet it cannot stand still” -Roscoe Pound The year 2005 saw tremendous change in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A change which was not only progressive but also imbibed the essence of right to equality as guaranteed in the Constitution. It provided for the right of a woman in ancestral property, treating her on par with her male counterpart for the very first time. The need to recognize the right of a woman in ancestral property was rejected at the very threshold when the Act was in its drafting stages. After almost 50 years from the inception of this Act, and after several rounds of parliamentary debates and discourses at various levels where the idea of bringing about this amendment on the touch stone of equality was mooted, it was finally enforced on 5th September,2005 with the amendment of the HSA. Since time immemorial the Hindu laws dealing with women’s property rights have been discriminatory and a woman is always treated as subservient and less fortunate. The avowed objective of this progressive 2005, amendment is to eradicate the disdainful practice of discrimination which is purely on the ground of gender and to ameliorate the condition of women both socially and economically. Sec. 6 of HSA re-defined Devolution of interest in coparcenary property: 1. On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,— (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. A plain reading of the Act 39 of 2005 which brought forth the much awaited amendment in section 6 (Devolution of interest in coparcenary property) of the Hindu Succession Act makes it apparent that a daughter becomes a coparcener by birth in her own right in the same manner as that of the son. It is the very factum of birth in the coparcenary that creates coparcenary. Therefore, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by virtue of ‘birth’ just like the son of the coparcener. This amendment also repealed section 23 of HSA which disentitled the female heir to ask for partition until the male chooses to divide their respective shares. Thus it clinches the issue beyond any pale of doubt that the daughter has an equal right in the ancestral property just like that of the son and gives her the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property. However anomalies arose in the manner of interpretation with respect to the nature of applicability of this amendment. In Prakash & Ors., Vs. Phulavathi & Ors., 2016 (2) SCC 36 the Court discussed at length about the applicability of the Act. The moot point in this case was whether the Act 39 of 2005 could be applied retrospectively. It was argued that the plain language of the statute unambiguously suggests that this right conferred on the daughter is “on and from the commencement of the HSA (Amendment), 2005”. However, it was counter argued that amendment must be applied retrospectively as it is a piece of social legislation. But the Court laid down in clear terms that even a social legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless so provided for or intended by the legislature. The Court further held that no other interpretation is possible in view of the express language of the statute. In conclusion the Court held that the amendment is applicable to living daughter of a living coparcener as on 05.09.2005 irrespective of when the daughter was born. Thus the raging controversy was momentarily buried after this authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court where the Court had also concurred with the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari Vs. Omprakash Shankar Bhandari 2014 SCC Online Bom 908. On the contrary the Supreme Court in Danamma Vs. Amar and ors., 2018(3) SCC 343 had gone on a different trajectory from its earlier judgment. The Court had taken a view that the very factum of birth confers coparcenaryship to sons and after the 2005 amendment to the daughters too and that the devolution of coparcenary property is at a later stage. Thus the Court explained that first stage is creation of coparcenary which then transcends into devolution upon death of a coparcener which is at a later stage. Thus the right of coparcenary emanates and flows from birth to both sons and daughters. The Court held that the right of the daughter got crystallized by virtue of the 2005 amendment; hence a share would devolve upon her. In the above case the daughter was given a share in ancestral property although the father died in the year 2001 which is quite contrary to the principles set out in Prakash & Ors., Vs. Phulavathi & Ors., Due to the apparent contradiction between the above referred cases, the matter now stands referred to a larger Bench in order to clarify the conundrum in the legal position. Conclusion Women’s property and development rights must be part of any development agenda. Women’s lack of property ownership is one of the most important contributors for women’s low social status, poverty and violence against them. It is more attitudinal and the mindset that definitely needs an overhaul and amendment rather than a statute. Even if it legally belongs to them, it doesn’t belong to them morally. Adding on to the patriarchal mindset is the lack of awareness about their rights under the statue which is seen as a bigger challenge. Our State was the indeed the 1st in India to bring about such a reformist amendment as early as on 1989 (TN Act 1/1989) which is about 16 years before this amendment to the Central Act. One can only wish and hope that the Apex Court disentangles the incongruity between the above referred judgments thus streamlining and making it easier for advocates and litigants. This back and forth and lack of clarity in the legislation defeats the purpose of the amendment in a lot of ways. Women have been oppressed for several centuries and a lot of legislations have been brought forth to ensure their progress and the protection of their rights. However, improper execution and conflicting interpretations do no good to the weaker sections of the society. It is highly imperative that the Executive and the Judiciary comes together in implementing the spirit of these legislations and ensure that equals are treated equally as envisioned in the Constitution.Views Are Personal Only.(Author is an Advocate practicing at the Madras High Court. The author may be reached at [email protected]) Next Story
Office of Missouri Governor(NEW YORK) — The realities of a recent string of abortion restrictions may become even clearer in Missouri on Friday as the state threatens to close its last remaining abortion clinic.Planned Parenthood officials announced they are filing a lawsuit Tuesday for a restraining order to stop the state from closing their one clinic in the state, which is located in St. Louis.“This is not a drill. This is not a warning. This is real and it is a public health crisis,” Dr. Leana Wen, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said on a call with reporters Tuesday.The license for the Planned Parenthood clinic, issued by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, is set to expire on Friday, and if it is not renewed, the clinic would have to cease operations. Planned Parenthood officials said they applied to have the license renewed.The suit names the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS), Randall Williams, the director of the DHSS, and Gov. Mike Parson as defendants. ABC News’ requests for comment from both the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and Governor Mike Parson’s office were not immediately returned.Planned Parenthood officials said on the call that the state asked to interview all seven of the clinic’s physicians but would not provide any guidance on what the doctors will be asked during the interviews. The Planned Parenthood officials said the interviews could lead to the doctors losing their medical licenses or possible criminal prosecution.Wen said if the restraining order isn’t issued and the clinic loses its license, that would mean that for the “first time since 1974, the year after Roe v. Wade was passed, that safe, legal abortion care will be unavailable to an entire state.”Colleen McNicholas, a doctor at the St. Louis clinic who was also on the Planned Parenthood call with reporters, warned that given the spread of abortion restrictions in several states in recent months, this tactic may not be limited to Missouri moving forward.“This is the foreshadowing of what is going to happen in other states,” McNicholas said, calling the elimination of abortion providers in Missouri a “dismantling of the rights and freedoms we fought for over decades.”She also said that if the clinic is closed, it would “unsurprisingly and perhaps by design” have a greater impact on lower income women who would have to travel further for an abortion.Missouri is one of a string of states that passed abortion bans in recent months, with Gov. Parson signing the state’s 8-week ban into law last week.As with every other abortion ban that has passed in other states recently — including Alabama and Georgia — a lawsuit filed almost immediately after the bill was signed into law stopped it from going into effect.The lawsuit over the abortion clinic isn’t the only legal action unfolding over access to abortion in the state. The American Civil Liberties Union announced Tuesday that they are going to pursue a referendum to overturn the abortion ban.Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
kali9/iStockBY: JON HAWORTH, ABC NEWS(LOS ANGELES) — A Los Angeles Police Department Harbor Division veteran with more than 30 years of experience is recovering in the hospital this morning after a violent encounter with man inside the police station late Saturday night.The incident happened shortly before 10 p.m. at the Harbor Station in San Pedro, California, when, an individual described as a Hispanic male who was approximately 29-years-old walked into the station and the officer went to meet him in the lobby area. An altercation then allegedly began after a brief discussion and, according to the Los Angeles Police Department, the officer’s weapon was taken from him and rounds were fired by the individual at the officer.“Fortunately, the officer was not struck by those rounds,” Police Chief Michel Moore said during a press conference.The suspect then fled the station after the incident in a white pickup truck when a short pursuit occurred. It was when the suspect was being apprehended that another brief altercation ensued and that officer was injured in the confrontation.According to the LAPD, the arresting officer may have injuries similar to being pistol whipped. The officer is now resting comfortably at a local area hospital.The suspect was taken into custody. A gun was recovered from the scene which belonged to the desk officer who was assaulted at the police station. The suspect also sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital. He will subsequently be released and booked on appropriate charges.“I am grateful that the officer who was in this incident tonight, who was working the desk, came out to assist this individual to understand what his needs were, that he survived,” Chief Moore said.Chief Moore said the officer is “resting” and is “comfortable” after suffering several injuries consistent with being “pistol-whipped or assaulted.”Early reports indicating that the desk officer suffered a gunshot wound which were incorrect.More information is expected to be released later today as the investigation remains ongoing.“The officer involved in this incident was transported to a local hospital and is receiving medical attention for non-life-threatening injuries,” the Los Angeles Police Department tweeted in a statement on social media. “The suspect involved in this incident is in custody. This is preliminary information, as this is an active and ongoing investigation.”“Sending my best wishes for a quick and full recovery to our @LAPDHQ officer injured in an incident at the Harbor Station tonight,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti tweeted .The officer is in stable condition and we’re closely monitoring the situation.”The officer involved in the incident has yet to be identified and additional information about the shooting incident was not immediately released.The shooting comes after two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies were shot in an apparent ambush earlier this month while sitting in a patrol car parked near a metro stop in Compton, California.Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.