NewsLocal NewsDramatic rescue for St Enda’s SCBy admin – January 13, 2011 593 At a meeting of Limerick City Council on Monday, it was revealed the facility had failed to meet the requirements of a Health and Safety Report.Tony O’Gorman, chairman of St Enda’s Sports Complex and St Enda’s School, reported that under legislation, they had no option but to close as they were unable to obtain funding for its refurbishment and therefore, could not insure the building.In a dramatic twist, Mr O’Gorman has now confirmed to this newspaper that behind-the-scenes talks resulted in a change of fortune that will save the complex for the immediate future, at least.“There was a lot of upset among staff and our membership after our problem surfaced. St Enda’s provides an excellent service to the people, both locally and from outside.“We have agreed a survival plan with the Department of Education to keep the complex open and as chair of the board, I am very confident for the future. Details of the plan will be revealed on Monday”.Councillors had already been alerted to what was described as an almost certain closure of the complex, by Cllr Ger Fahy.He revealed at a council meeting that the centre had been struggling to stay afloat.He had also expressed concerns about St Enda’s School, as with a vacant adjoining sports complex, there would be fears regarding anti-social behaviour arising in the area.City Council provides €65,000 annually towards St Enda’s Sports Complex. Cllr Joe Leddin told Monday’s meeting that without this financial support, St Enda’s would not be able to continue, and if closure was the only answer, it would have been a major loss to Limerick. Twitter Linkedin WhatsApp Facebook Threat of closure abatesIN a dramatic development this Wednesday, the Limerick Post was informed that St Enda’s Sports Complex, faced with the axe, is about to be saved.The strong and active membership from both city and county had voiced their shock that the future of the facility was under serious threat.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up Advertisement Email Print Previous articleNew car sales motoring wellNext articleBroken Record? admin
News UpdatesSection 138 NI Act – Demand Notice Need Not Disclose Nature Of Transaction Leading To Issuance Of Cheque : Kerala High Court Lydia Suzanne Thomas18 March 2021 6:34 AMShare This – x“The court cannot legislate by prescribing a particular form and cannot require that the nature of the transaction, leading to the issuance of cheque, be disclosed in the notice when the statute does not provide for it.”Answering a reference, the Kerala High Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not disclose the nature of transaction leading to the issuance of cheque.The Division Bench was answering the reference whether a demand notice without a full disclosure of the details of the transaction would be rendered invalid. The Bench, comprising …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?LoginAnswering a reference, the Kerala High Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not disclose the nature of transaction leading to the issuance of cheque.The Division Bench was answering the reference whether a demand notice without a full disclosure of the details of the transaction would be rendered invalid. The Bench, comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and MR Anitha ruled that the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) did not mandate a format for a demand notice. The Court stated in the case K Basheer v C Usman Koya as follows :, “The court cannot legislate by prescribing a particular form and cannot require that the nature of the transaction, leading to the issuance of cheque, be disclosed in the notice when the statute does not provide for it.” The question was referred to the Division Bench for consideration after a Single Bench hearing an appeal against an Additional Sessions Court’s Order found divergence in the Kerala High Court’s treatment of such cases. The Single Judge was hearing an appeal from the order of an Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent (accused) who was alleged to have dishonoured a cheque. In Kerala High Court decision Divakaran v. State of Kerala, a Single Judge of Justice K Abraham Mathew had held that the nature and date of transaction, and the date of issuance of cheque were material facts. If these were not disclosed in the statutory demand notice, the doors of the Court would be closed for such ‘fortune seekers’, it had been stated. The Single Judge in the case had held that a person accused in a complaint under Section 142 of the Act is entitled to know the material particulars of the accusation levelled before he was tried. A suppression of these particulars would entail acquittal, without anything more, it was stated. Another Single Bench of the High Court took a divergent stance in Surendra Das v. State of Kerala, wherein the Judge opined that an error or an omission to state the nature of debt or liability in a demand notice does not render it invalid. The Court had pointed out that the Act did not prescribe a form in which a demand notice was to be issued under Section 138(b). Drawing from the legislative scheme and intent, the Division Bench stated that a complaint under Section 138 required the following factual allegations, that the cheque was drawn in a valid account by the holder, that its presentation was within six months or validity period; whichever is earlier, that the cheque was dishonoured, that the demand was made by the payee or holder in due course within 30 days of dishonour. The Court surmised that the only additional fact that had to be proved was the fact that the drawer did not pay the sum demanded within 15 days from the date of receipt of the demand. Concluding that the statute did not prescribe a form for a demand notice, the Court quoted Central Bank of India & Anr. v. M/s. Saxons Farms & Ors., wherein it had been categorically held that no form of notice is prescribed under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Holding that the Act only required a payee or holder in due course to notify the drawer of the cheque of its dishonour, the Bench held that the legislation created a presumption in favour of the payee once the ingredients of the dishonour were disclosed. This presumption could not be rendered otiose, the Court emphasized. The Bench summarised the law on dishonour of cheques in this way, “The legislative intention is to overcome the cumbersome procedure of filing police report or complaint and subsequent enquiry or investigation etc., in matters of cheque dishonour. It also seeks to avoid the filing of a civil suit and a further execution for realisation of the decretal amount. This is the reason why Proviso (b) to Sec.138 provides that once the cheque is returned on presentation for reason of insufficiency of funds or for exceeding the arrangement, the payee or the holder in due course may make a demand for payment of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, but within 30 days of the receipt of information of dishonour from the Bank. Time frame prescribed under the proviso further is an indication to ensure the bonafides of the drawee.” Therefore, the Court declared, “It is also to be noted in this context that the offence u/s.138 of the Act is an offence which would be attracted on the ingredients above referred being satisfied. The statute also provides a presumption in favour of the holder which cannot be rendered otiose. We are, with utmost respect, unable to agree with the requirement mandated by Divakaran that the nature of the transaction should be disclosed in the notice; as that does not appear to be the correct position of law.” On facts, the Court found that there was no business transaction between the accused and the complainant as alleged by the latter. Additionally, when the complainant averred that the accused had failed to respond to his demand notice, the Court stated that a failure to send reply cannot be a circumstance to prove the case of the complainant or demolish the case of the defence. On these terms, the appeal was dismissed.Click here to download the judgmentNext Story
HOOP STARS—Bruce Atkins, left, and B.B. Flenory, right, were presented with their award by Diamond Models member Janea. One of western Pennsylvania’s longest running awards banquets was held at DiEmperios 4-star restaurant in Monroeville. It began with a special honor to the Champions Association by Ernie Bey who received an African-style hand carved staff.The evening featured awards to Pittsburgh MVPs, (most valuable persons). The keynote speaker and co-sponsor was Leah Williams Duncan.The proceeds will go to benefit the Champion Enterprises 25th annual Toys for Tots Christmas party.The 2010 awardees were Beverly Harris Walker, Sam Clancy, Tika Hemmingway, Rayco Saunders, Darnell Dinkins, Gloria Hill, Sheldon Ingram, Greg McGhee, Chaz Kellem, Bruce Atkins, Kevin Cameron, Joyce Ellis, Russell Bynum, Bill Viola, Shayla Scott, Ace Pippens, Paul Seneca and Gilbert Brown.The sponsors were Urban Settlement, Penn Avenue McDonalds, Attorney Jim Cook, Dave Smith Chevrolet, Attorney William Goodrich, Attorney Arnie Klein, Highmark and The New Pittsburgh Courier. The 35th annual Willie “Pop” Stargell Pittsburgh MVP Awards Banquet did not disappoint. “The night of the Champions” brought out some of western Pennsylvania’s all time, as well as current champions including Local World Women Boxing champion and 2012 Olympic hopeful Tika Hemmingway, Super Bowl champion Darnell Dinkins and basketball greats Bruce Atkins and B.B. Flenory.
Selkirk currently trails the Clan by two points for first place in the BCIHL standings, but they are assured of overtaking their Lower Mainland rivals with three straight wins to close out the regular season.Game time is set for 7:30 PM at the Castlegar Recreation Complex.”It took us some time to start competing in the defensive zone tonight and we put ourselves in a hole because of that,” said Saints head coach Jeff Dubois. “But we have a lot of confidence in our offence to bring us back those types of situations, and I thought we did the things we needed to in order to win in the second and third periods. Former Selkirk forward Travis Herlein took advantage of a slow road start from the Saints, scoring twice in a span of 4:51 in the first period to give the WolfPack an early 2-0 lead.But the Saints rebounded before intermission, as Thomas Hardy took a slick pass from Mason Spear and beat TRU goaltender Mark Menicucci inside the far post to pull the visitors within one. Selkirk took control in the second period but were unable to even the score until Logan Proulx was sprung for a breakaway by linemate Jackson Garrett and blew a wrist shot past the glove of the WolfPack netminder.But that was the last time that the Saints would get the better of Menicucci during regulation, as the Surrey, BC product went on to make a number of sensational saves during the second and third periods. Following a scoreless overtime frame, Saints netminder Chris Hurry stopped all three WolfPack shootout attempts before Dyck beat Menicucci on a backhand deke to win the game and give Selkirk a much-needed two points. “(Mark) Menicucci was outstanding in goal for TRU and made some huge saves late in the game and overtime, so you have to tip your hat to him,” Dubois said.”It was the second night in a row where we had 50+ shots on goal and didn’t end up with a whole lot to show for it, but it was good to see us battle through that in both games and pick up two important wins.”GAME NOTES: With his second period goal, Proulx extended his season-long points streak to 21 games. Darnell Dyck scored in shootout to lift the Selkirk College Men’s Hockey team to a 3-2 victory over Thompson Rivers University in B.C. Intercollegiate Hockey League action Saturday in Kamloops.The win keeps the hopes for another first place BCIHL finish for the Saints alive.Saturday night Selkirk hosts Simon Fraser University in a huge game.
The Coments opened with a 2-1 victory Friday as Jenn Gardiner scored the winner less than a minute into the third period.Michaela Read scored the other goal for Greater Vancouver while Nelson’s Kelsey Paterson replied for Kootenay.Greater Vancouver then clinched the series as Gardiner once again scored the winner Saturday.Rebecca Clarke and Stefanie Wallace also scored for the Coments.Reece Hunt of Nelson and Lisa du Toit replied for Kootenay.Greater Vancouver now meets Northern Capitals in the league final beginning Friday in Coquitlam. The Capitals defeated Fraser Valley Rush in the other semi final series played in Prince George. Despite finishing more than 20 points behind in regular season standings, the Kootenay Wild gave Greater Vancouver Comets everything they could handle before losing two straight in semi final action of the BC Hockey Female AAA League Playoffs.The Comets squeaked out a pair of one-goal victories to sweep the Wild 2-0 in the best-of-three playoff this past weekend in Coquitlam.