THE FACTS. From the affidavit evidence before me and the submissions by counsel for all the parties it is quite clear that the plaintiff is the legal owner of Stand No. 36 Kitwe which at the time of commencement of these proceedings on 23rd September 2009 had comprised of residential flats. It is also quite clear that about 2004 the defendant allowed the third parties to occupy the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36 Kitwe on the understanding that the third parties would pay site rent to the defendant which was paid from time to time. It is also a fact that subsequent to these proceedings the defendant rezoned the area including the area where Stand No. 36 is situated from residential to commercial and that the plaintiff obtained building permission to demolish the flats and to construct a shopping complex. It is further a fact that subsequently the plaintiff advised the defendant to remove the third parties from the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36 Kitwe and that the defendant issued to the third parties in September and November 2009 notices to remove their makeshift stalls from the road reserve and frontage of Stand No. 36
THE FACTS. 2. The facts that have emerged from the unrefuted evidence may be summarized as follows: On or around August 1, 2004, Xxx XxXxxxx, the claimant, was employed to Atlas Protection Limited, the first defendant, as an unarmed security guard. The first defendant was at the time, and still is, engaged in the business of providing security services in Jamaica. The claimant was assigned static duty between 7:00 p.m. on July 31, 2004 and 7:00 a.m. on August 1, 2004 at premises located at 00 Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxx 00. Those premises housed a factory owned and operated by Ringo Company Limited, the second defendant. The second defendant was at the time carrying on the business of food and juice manufacturing. The claimant was the only security guard assigned to perform duties at that location during that period.
THE FACTS. 2.01: In January 2005 the United Nations Secretary General, Xxxxx Xxxxx flew to Cameroon and obtained a commitment [herein referred as the Xxx Bakassi Peace Accord] which accordingly reads….. “
THE FACTS. 3. The appellant, which is “a wholly owned company of the Government of Madhya Pradesh” (as described by the appellant in the D Special Leave Petition), is responsible for the bulk purchase of electricity in the State of Madhya Pradesh for onward sale/supply to the distribution utilities (DISCOMS). The appellant issued a request for proposal (RFP) dated 06.05.2015 for long-term procurement of 300 MW of solar energy through tariff-based competitive bidding. The bid of M/s Sky Power Southeast Asia Holding Limited was accepted. It was declared the E successful bidder for three units of 50 MW each at different tariff rates. The bidder subsequently incorporated the first respondent, viz., M/s Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited as a special purpose company. This was for developing one project of 50 MW. The rate, which is applicable in respect of the first respondent, was Rs.5.109 per F unit. In respect of the other two bids, the bidder incorporated other companies, viz., M/s Sky Power Solar India Private Limited and M/s Sky Power Southeast Asia One Private Limited. The rates applicable in respect of said companies for the other two projects consisting of 50 MW each was Rs.5.298 per unit and Rs.5.051 per unit, respectively. The PPA was entered into on 18.09.2015. The agreement, inter alia, G provided for pre-commissioning activities. They are described as satisfaction of conditions subsequent by the seller. The first respondent is the seller under the PPA.
THE FACTS. 5 Counsel prepared an Agreed Statement of Facts (the "Agreed Facts") supported by various documents (reference to the latter have been omitted from what follows). I have also attempted to anonymize the personal circumstances of three teachers put forward to illustrate the medical complications that may arise from pregnancy and child birth. Parties and the Collective Agreement
THE FACTS. On June 8, 2001, RA 9136 or the EPIRA was passed into law. Among the policies declared therein is the “orderly and transparent privatization of the assets and liabilities of the National Power Corporation (NPC).”2 To carry out this policy, the EPIRA created PSALM, a government-owned and controlled corporation with the mandate to “manage the orderly sale, disposition, and privatization of NPC generation assets, real estate and other disposable assets, and IPP [independent power producers] contracts with the objective of liquidating all NPC financial obligations and stranded contract costs in an optimal manner.”3 To enable PSALM to effectively discharge its functions under the law, it was allowed to “take ownership of all existing NPC generation assets, liabilities, IPP contracts, real estate, and all other disposable assets.”4 On the manner of privatization of NPC assets, the EPIRA provides:
THE FACTS. High School/Private /School/Home School students who graduate in 2018 with a minimum 2.5 GPA qualify. • Students must be residents of Giles County for one year prior to applying to ACCE. • Students must first apply through FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) in order to participate. Note: If a student qualifies for full financial aid in the first year and does NOT need ACCE funding, the student may elect to retain their ACCE funding eligibility into the second year by completing their 100 community service hours/annum. • Students must complete the NRCC Placement Tests (or SAT/ACT) with no more than nine credits of development coursework needed. • Students must take the College Success Skills course during their first semester of enrollment • Funds will allow no more than 15 credit hours in each of the fall and spring semesters. A maximum of 60 hours will be funded over the two years. Students must enroll in a minimum of 12 credit hours per semester. • Students must maintain a minimum 2.5 GPA at NRCC to remain eligible for ACCE funding. • Fees for any classes failed or withdrawn after the deadline must be reimbursed to ACCE. • Students must pay for their own textbooks and supplies. NOTE: ACCE pays for up to 60 credit hours maximum. (NOTE: Some degrees require more than 60 credit hours.) • Students must enroll in a degree or certificate program that meets federal financial aid requirements. • If students are in a certificate program, they may not take multiple certificates that are not complimentary to each other, or, do not result in an AAS or AA&S Certificate. • It is strongly suggested that students do not work the first semester in order to ensure greater academic success. • Students and a guardian are strongly encouraged to attend a Financial Aid Workshop held at each high school. • Students must complete 100 hours in a Giles County assigned community service project each year. (A waiver for 20 hours is available for student’s documented civic/volunteerism activity.) All hours are solely at the discretion of the Community Service Coordinator, including 20 hours related to the Muddy ACCE Race. • Additionally, each student is required to promote the Muddy ACCE Race by either, 1. Securing a race sponsor, 2. Sponsoring a team or 3. Securing a vendor. • ACCE students will be required to enter the Friday test Race and pay an entry fee. • Each ACCE student will agree to submit to random drug screens as described in the ACCE Drug Testing Policy. • ...
THE FACTS. 3.1 On 31 January 2007 Sellers approached Mr X, the Intermediary, looking to sell a quantity of 3,600-3,800 metric tons of Russian Sunflowerseeds on a prompt basis. Mr X was a former employee of Buyers and subsequently in his new business was known to collaborate with Xxxxxx in certain agricultural commodities transactions. In the event, the interest was passed on to Xxxxxx, who recognised Sellers' name as a company they had previously done business with and decided to open negotiations for the parcel.
THE FACTS. 3.1 On 30 June 2004 the Parties agreed a Frame Contract for the sale of about 20,000 metric tons Romanian Sunflower Seeds, Crop 2004, in Bulk, for delivery in monthly lots of about 5,000 metric tons each, for delivery in September, October, November and December 2004.
THE FACTS. [4] In the Reasons which he gave in support of his decision, Xxxxx J. carefully and thoroughly reviewed the facts relevant to the issues before him. Although the Judge’s summary of the evidence is somewhat lengthy, it is essential to a proper understanding of the issues raised in the appeal. Before reproducing the relevant paragraphs of the Judge’s Reasons, a few words concerning the reasons which led the Minister to introduce the Pilot Plan will be useful. [5] There are over sixty different species of fish on the Pacific coast, with seven different fleets. Because the nature of the Fisheries is that species intermingle, this leads to what is referred to in the industry as a “bycatch”. In effect, although fishers may be licensed to catch one species of fish, for example halibut, they may well catch a number of other fish, i.e. the bycatch, while attempting to catch halibut. In such a situation, 2008 FCA 212 (CanLII) because fishers can only retain the fish that they are licensed to catch, the non-licensed fish must be returned to the water and, depending on the type of fish so returned, there is a high probability that the fish will die when returned to the water. This is clearly the situation in the case of rock fish. [6] In 2001, the Minister determined that changes in the Fisheries had to be made, failing which significant curtailment thereof would be necessary. The proposed changes were meant to address conservation and protection issues pertaining to endangered and at risk rock fish species, bycatch mortality and to allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (“DFO”) to assess stocks by improving the monitoring and catch reporting for all species. [7] In June 2003, the Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29, was enacted, resulting in the classification of Boccaccio rock fish as a threatened species and the identification of 11 other rock fish species as high priority for possible listing as “species at risk” under the Act. [8] In March 2005, DFO decided that commencing with the 2006 fishing season, 100% electronic monitoring of catch would be required for all commercial groundfish fishing trips. Monitoring was deemed necessary in order to accurately account for all catch by a fishing vessel, be it landed or at sea releases. Through this means, DFO believed that it would have more accurate information to determine whether total allowable catches (“TAC”) within a given commercial groundfish Fishery were being exceeded. With more accurate information, th...
