Suchergebnisse

Constitution of India aims to provide social, economic and political justice to its citizens by the establishment of regular Courts of law throughout the country. However, the pre-litigation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have gathered importance in the recent years. These institutions confer authority to the individual litigant/s to choose an arbitrator by way of an arbitration agreement for the settlement of disputes, or a mediator. The award rendered by an arbitral tribunal and the Lok adalat have been conferred the status of 'decree' of a Court of ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 08.07.2021[1] sanctioned the legal validity of summons issued by the in-house Committee of Delhi State Legislative Assembly[2] for appearance[3] of officers of the Facebook company. The issue for determination was whether the Peace and Harmony Committee could take cognizance in the matter in which Delhi police has inherent jurisdiction? There is wide media reportage with reference to the judgment on issuance of summons. This paper therefore, endeavours to analyse the tenets of law which confer authority to an institution in its individual capacity to take cognizance in the matter. This analysis would be made in the light of the prevalence of institutions of alternative dispute resolution. [1] "The committee has the right to seek information on any matter related to peace and harmony without encroaching on any subject under the seventh schedule (allocation of powers and functions between Union and states)," the court said. see https://theprint.in/judiciary/wont-quash-summons-to-facebook-in-riots-case-but-delhi-panel-cant-probe-law-order-issue-sc/692229/ (last visited 04.08.2021). [2] The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the authority of Delhi Assembly's Peace and Harmony Committee to summon Facebook India's senior official Ajit Mohan in connection with the February 2020 communal violence, saying the Capital can ill-afford another riot, and the role of Facebook "must be ...

Aus jugoslawischer Sicht

American companies continue to face questions arising from the Black Lives Matter movement. The sensitivity of the issues is exacerbated by the fact that African Americans are about twice as likely to die in the current pandemic as whites. One of the quandaries for employers is whether they may lawfully prohibit employees from wearing pins, shirts, or other items indicating their support for racial justice while working. Starbucks and Whole Foods have taken opposing views.