New Plea In Supreme Court Against Madras HC Order Permitting Online Sale Of Liquor [Read Petition]

first_imgTop StoriesNew Plea In Supreme Court Against Madras HC Order Permitting Online Sale Of Liquor [Read Petition] Akshita Saxena13 May 2020 9:08 PMShare This – xChief Coordinator of Naam Thamilar Katchi (NTK) party, Seeman has moved the Supreme Court against the “oxymoric” decision of the Madras High Court order allowing sale of liquor via online medium and door delivery system. The SLP has been filed through Advocate K. Paari Vendhan against the High Court order dated May 8, whereby a division bench comprising Justices Vineet Kothari 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?LoginChief Coordinator of Naam Thamilar Katchi (NTK) party, Seeman has moved the Supreme Court against the “oxymoric” decision of the Madras High Court order allowing sale of liquor via online medium and door delivery system. The SLP has been filed through Advocate K. Paari Vendhan against the High Court order dated May 8, whereby a division bench comprising Justices Vineet Kothari and Pushpa Satynarayana permitted online sale of liquor, taking note of huge crowd situation in TASMAC outlets selling alcohol bottles in retail. As per the Petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be quashed as it is in direct contravention of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Direction of National Disaster Management Act on May 1, 2020, as per which e-commerce activities are permitted only for “essential items”, outside the contaminated zones. It is stated that liquor/ wine are not “essential Commodities” under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence, the impugned order is antithetical to public interest. In fact, the Petitioner has pointed out that the SLP filed by the State Government against the impugned order also acknowledges that online sale of liquor is “not feasible as it is unworkable and evidently against the public interest”. “Impugned order allowing sale via argument of the State Government of achieving economic re-stabilization through selling liquor to its own citizens, that too at the middle of this Pandemic should reject at the threshold outrightly as it is fallacious, illogical to the data and unethical,” the plea states. In view thereof, the Petitioner has sought that the impugned order be stayed, only qua the sale of Liquor through online and home delivery. The Petitioner is however in consensus with the other part of the impugned order regarding closure ofNliquor shops, stating that the same will let social distancing norms to prevail. He has further argued that consuming Alcohol would lead to the severe health consequences, including increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), one of the most severe complications of COVID-19, as reported by the World Health Organization. Moreover, the Petitioner has highlighted the colossal damage caused due to re-opening of liquor shops in the state, causing overcrowding of the people in front of the Wine Shops/ Outlets. He has asserted that social distancing norms were “deliberately flouted” by the State of Tamil Nadu, by failing to handle such overcrowding. “Most of the Public who came to the Wine Shops/ Outlets did not wear any masks and the Police Personals did not take any actions against these people,” the Petitioner submitted. In this backdrop, he has sought a judicial enquiry to fix the responsibility for this “hurried opening of wine shops”, when the state was not prepared to deal with the situation. He has also prayed the court to impose exemplary cost on head of TASMAC, for causing irreparable loss to the Public and the Government, which cost to be deposited in any appropriate fund preferably for the Destitute Widow Pension Scheme of State of Tamil Nadu. Notably, the impugned order has also been challenged by the state-owned TASMAC against the direction close all liquor shops. A batch of similar petitions challenging the May 8 order are also pending before the Madras High Court., which will be heard today by a bench comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi, Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari and Justice PN Prakash. Click Here To Download SLP Read SLP Next Storylast_img read more

Read More..

Disciplinary Action

first_imgDisciplinary Action December 15, 2004 Disciplinary Actions Disciplinary Actioncenter_img The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders suspended six attorneys, reprimanded eight, and accepted the resignation of four attorneys.The following lawyers are disciplined: Lori Elizabeth Ager, 402 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, suspended from practicing law in Florida, effective 30 days following a Sept. 21 court order. ( Admitted to practice: 1995) On July 13, Ager plead no contest to two counts of manslaughter by driving under the influence and was sentenced to five years of adjudication followed by 10 years probation. (Case no. SC04-1756) Howard I. Alabaster, 9600 W. Sample Road, Ste. 507, Coral Springs, resigned in lieu of disciplinary proceedings, with leave to seek readmission after five years, effective retroactive to June 10, 2002. ( Admitted to practice: 1979) At the time of Alabaster’s resignation, a case was pending at the Supreme Court level against him for alleged contempt, precipitated by his misrepresentation of himself as an attorney and a member in good standing after his suspension, and by his misrepresentations of fact to the referee during the course of his reinstatement proceedings. (Case no. SC04-1394) Karel Herman Baarslag, 3540 Coronado Drive, Apt. 502, Sarasota, resigned in lieu of disciplinary proceedings, with leave to seek readmission after three years, effective 30 days following a September 15 court order. ( Admitted to practice: 1976) At the time of Baarslag’s resignation, he was under investigation for two cases that were pending at the grievance committee level. (Case no. SC04-1343) Ann Bitterman, 3721 S. LeJeune Road, Coconut Grove, suspended from practicing law in Florida for 91 days, effective immediately following a September 23 court order. Bitterman is further placed on probation for three years. ( Admitted to practice: 1986) Among several Bar violations, Bitterman violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. (Case no. SC03-1370) Suzanne Consagra, 1040 Woodcock Road, Ste. 214, Orlando, suspended from practicing law in Florida for 60 days, effective 30 days following a September 15 court order. Upon reinstatement, Consagra is further placed on probation for three years. ( Admitted to practice: 1985) Among several Bar violations, Consagra failed to maintain minimum trust accounting records; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and failed to respond, in writing, to an official inquiry by Bar counsel or disciplinary agency when conducting an investigation into her conduct. (Case no. SC03-2147) David Deutsch, 16585 N.W. Second Ave., Miami, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 30 court order. Deutsch shall attend The Florida Bar’s Advertising Workshop prior to petitioning for reinstatement. ( Admitted to practice: 1989) Deutsch made prohibited statements and information about himself or his services; revealed the nature of a legal problem on the outside of a brochure; and failed to pay the required late filing fee for an advertisement. (Case no. SC04-384) Nadege Elliott, P.O. Box 150773, Cape Coral, suspended from practicing law in Florida for 75 days, effective September 29, following a September 15 court order. Upon reinstatement, Elliott is further placed on probation for one year. ( Admitted to practice: 1998) Among several Bar violations, Elliott violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced another to do so, or did so through the acts of another; engaged in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. (Case no. SC03-2071) Godwin James Essien, 1978 Crystal Downs Court, Oviedo, resigned in lieu of disciplinary history, with leave to seek readmission after five years, effective immediately following a September 2 court order. ( Admitted to practice: 1994) At the time of Essien’s resignation, he had several cases pending at the Supreme Court and investigative level. (Case no. SC04-1032) Knovack Gramby Jones, 18590 N.W. 67th Ave., Ste. 201, Hialeah, resigned in lieu of disciplinary proceedings, without leave to seek readmission, effective 30 days following a Sept. 30 court order. ( Admitted to practice: 1983) At the time of Jones’ resignation, she was under investigation for a complaint involving alleged misuse of trust funds. (Case no. SC04-1357) Mario Joseph Louis, 80 S.W. Eighth St., Ste. 3330, Miami, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 15 court order. Louis is further placed on probation for one year. ( Admitted to practice: 1990) On January 17, 2002, Louis pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was ordered to complete nine months probation and 100 hours of community service. (Case no. SC04-1692) Cecile Angela Martin, 18350 N.W. Second Ave., Floor 5, Miami, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 15 court order. ( Admitted to practice: 1984) Among several Bar violations, Martin failed to provide competent representation to a client; neglected to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and failed to respond, in writing, to an official inquiry by Bar counsel or a disciplinary agency, when conducting an investigation into her conduct. (Case no. SC04-533) Michael M. O’Brien, 105 E. Robinson St., Ste. 307, Orlando, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 23 court order. O’Brien is further placed on probation for three years. ( Admitted to practice: 1981) Among several Bar violations, O’Brien failed to comply with the Rules Regulating Trust Accounts; failed, at least annually, to prepare a detailed listing identifying the balance of the unexpended trust money held for each client or matter; and failed to perform minimum trust accounting procedures. (Case no. SC03-2154) Guillermo Enrique Pena, 444 Brickell Ave., #U51-119, Miami, suspended from practicing law in Florida for one year, effective retroactive to November 24, 2003. ( Admitted to practice: 1991) Pena failed to comply with the Rules Regulating Trust Accounts; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and engaged in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (Case no. SC03-1455) Scott Goodman Ryals, 512 S. Second St., Ft. Pierce, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 15 court order. Ryals is further placed on probation, not to exceed one year requiring restitution. ( Admitted to practice: 1997) Among several Bar violations, Ryals failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and entered into an agreement for, charged, or collected an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee. (Case no. SC04-1675) Jack Schrold, 6838 N.W. 117th Ave., Parkland, suspended from practicing law in Florida for two years, effectively immediately following a September 23 court order. A full restoration of Schrold’s civil rights shall be an express condition of his rehabilitation and reinstatement to practice law in the State of Florida. ( Admitted to practice: 1993) Among several Bar violations, Schrold violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisted or induced another to do so, or did so through the acts of another; and committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. (Case no. SC04-360) Stephanie Diane Staples, P.O. Box 2518, Palatka, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 30 court order. Staples is further placed on probation for three years. ( Admitted to practice: 1994) Among several Bar violations, Staples failed to provide competent representation to a client; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and entered into an agreement for, charged, or collected an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee. (Case no. SC04-421) Lee C. Summers, 4913 Sugar Pine Drive, Boca Raton, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 23 court order. Summers must attend and satisfactorily complete The Florida Bar’s ethics school. ( Admitted to practice: 1979) Summers failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client and violated the Rules Regulating Trust Accounts. (Case no. SC04-610) Clifford Martin Travis, P.O. Box 523, Inverness, reprimanded for professional misconduct following a September 23 court order. Travis is further placed on probation for two years. ( Admitted to practice: 1983) Travis failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and failed to respond, in writing, to an official inquiry by Bar counsel or a disciplinary agency, when conducting an investigation into his conduct. (Case no. SC04-863) Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline.last_img read more

Read More..