設為首頁收藏本站

A-Plus互動討論區

 找回密碼
 立即註冊

Login

免註冊即享有會員功能

搜索
熱搜: 活動 交友 discuz
查看: 10|回復: 0
打印 上一主題 下一主題

Boston Red Sox Jerseys t2camdko

[複製鏈接]

1萬

主題

1萬

帖子

4萬

積分

論壇元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

積分
45633
跳轉到指定樓層
樓主
發表於 2017-8-8 07:58:52 | 只看該作者 回帖獎勵 |倒序瀏覽 |閱讀模式
分享到: 更多
High Court judge, Diane Insanally, on Thursday ruled against outspoken activist, Jinnah Rahman,Jim Rice Red Sox Jersey, and rice miller, Turhane Doerga, discharging a number of orders which were obtained against the Guyana Rice Producers Association (RPA).In April last year, the applicants, Rahman and Doerga, through their Attorney-at-Law, Saphier Hussain, filed a Notice of Motion in the High Court seeking a number of court orders to challenge the elections of office bearers of the RPA, a statutory body corporate. These elections were scheduled to take place on May 22, 2009.The applicants, in their affidavit, alleged that they were empowered by “thousands of rice farmers to represent their interest” and that the elections and the list of candidates were in breach of the Guyana Rice Producers Association Act and Regulation, unlawful and undemocratic.Anil Nandlall and Manoj Narayan, appeared for the RPA.According to court documents, Nandlall argued that the applicants were not authorised under the provisions of the Guyana Rice Producers Association Act to file the proceedings which provide that to file such proceedings the applicant must be a rice farmer as defined by the Act.He continued that the applicants in this case were not rice farmers or owners of rice lands and as such they were not qualified to launch the proceedings.He further argued that Rahman and Doerga were not authorised to act on behalf of any rice farmer; that the applicants failed to establish that there was any breach of the regulations and in procedures or laws related to the electoral process.He also argued that in fact, and to the contrary, the process leading up to the elections was transparent, widely participatory, democratic and in compliance with all the rules and regulations touching and 0concerning the electoral process; that the Notice of Motion filed was misconceived and incurably bad in law and that the challenge by the Applicants was completely baseless and without merit.Justice Insanally upheld Nandlall’s submissions and discharged the orders that were previously granted. She dismissed the Applicants’ case and ordered them to pay costs in the sum of $50,000 to the RPA.
回復

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 立即註冊

本版積分規則

重要聲明:本討論區是以即時上載留言的方式運作,A-Plus補習討論區對所有留言的真實性、完整性及立場等,不負任何法律責任。而一切留言之言論只代表留言者個人意見,並非本網站之立場,讀者及用戶不應信賴內容,並應自行判斷內容之真實性。於有關情形下,讀者及用戶應尋求專業意見(如涉及醫療、法律或投資等問題)。 由於本討論區受到「即時上載留言」運作方式所規限,故不能完全監察所有留言,若讀者及用戶發現有留言出現問題,請聯絡我們。A-Plus補習討論區有權刪除任何留言及拒絕任何人士上載留言(刪除前或不會作事先警告及通知),同時亦有不刪除留言的權利,如有任何爭議,管理員擁有最終的詮釋權。用戶切勿撰寫粗言穢語、誹謗、渲染色情暴力或人身攻擊的言論,敬請自律。本網站保留一切法律權利。

手機版|小黑屋|A-Plus互動討論區    

GMT+8, 2024-5-5 00:36 , Processed in 0.070107 second(s), 26 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表