Kannada mandatory on shop nameboards: Mangaluru City Corporation Commissioner
Mangaluru (Karnataka) June 7: The Commissioner of Mangaluru City Corporation has warned commercial establishments in the city that do not display nameboards written in Kannada, stating that they would have to face action as strict as cancellation of their licences.
In a directive sent to all commercial, industrial and business enterprises, trusts, counselling centres, hospitals, laboratories, entertainment centres and hotels on Friday, Corporation Commissioner Anand C L has directed that Kannada letters must cover 60 per cent of the space on the nameboards. “It is a government policy and there are no concessions” he informed them.
“The complaints received from the public about some businessmen installing nameplates in English in violation of the said order are being seriously considered. Therefore, henceforth it has been made mandatory for all the entrepreneurs under the corporation to use Kannada at the top of their business shop nameplates”
In case of failure, the business license issued by the corporation will be cancelled without any warning, the Commissioner said in the announcement.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Court can reject anticipatory bail but cannot direct accused to surrender: SC
New Delhi (PTI): A court can reject anticipatory bail of an accused but it has no jurisdiction to direct him to surrender before the trial court, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery.
"If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender," the bench said.
The Jharkhand High Court had rejected anticipatory bail plea of the accused and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.
In this case, a complaint had been filed before a magistrate alleging offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document) and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, in connection with a land dispute.
The high court had dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused on the ground that no new circumstances were shown.
It had relied on its earlier order rejecting his first anticipatory bail plea, in which the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail in terms of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
The top court said such a direction was wholly without jurisdiction and said that if a court chooses to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it cannot compel the accused to surrender.
