Conditioned Latin hypercube sampling, as published by Minasny and McBratney (2006) <doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2005.12.009>. This method proposes to stratify sampling in presence of ancillary data. An extension of this method, which propose to associate a cost to each individual and take it into account during the optimisation process, is also proposed (Roudier et al., 2012, <doi:10.1201/b12728-46>).
| Version: | 0.7-0 |
| Depends: | R (≥ 2.14.0) |
| Imports: | utils, methods, grid, ggplot2, sp, raster, reshape2, plyr, scales, cluster |
| Suggests: | knitr, rmarkdown, testthat |
| Published: | 2018-10-10 |
| Author: | Pierre Roudier [aut, cre], Colby Brugnard [ctb], Dylan Beaudette [ctb], Benjamin Louis [ctb] |
| Maintainer: | Pierre Roudier <roudierp at landcareresearch.co.nz> |
| License: | GPL-2 | GPL-3 [expanded from: GPL (≥ 2)] |
| NeedsCompilation: | no |
| Citation: | clhs citation info |
| Materials: | README NEWS |
| CRAN checks: | clhs results |
| Reference manual: | clhs.pdf |
| Vignettes: |
#intro-clhs |
| Package source: | clhs_0.7-0.tar.gz |
| Windows binaries: | r-devel: clhs_0.7-0.zip, r-release: clhs_0.7-0.zip, r-oldrel: clhs_0.7-0.zip |
| OS X binaries: | r-release: clhs_0.7-0.tgz, r-oldrel: clhs_0.7-0.tgz |
| Old sources: | clhs archive |
Please use the canonical form https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=clhs to link to this page.


Buy and sell ideas by Sacchitanand Uttekar of Tradebulls Securities
On Nifty, It's ideal to retain a long-short strategy and focus on stock-specific action until the index completes its corrective phase
by Sacchitanand UttekarNifty
Nifty remains locked in within the ‘Broadening’ formation on the 60 minute scale. Even on the daily scale it had been forming narrow ranged bodies and has slipped below its 5 EMA. The cool-off could push the index lower towards 11,700 once below 11,840. On the other hand, Nifty Bank remains relatively stronger and is helping Nifty retain some strength despite the overbought state. It’s ideal to retain a long-short strategy and focus on stock specific action until the index completes its corrective phase.
Stock: General Insurance Corporation of India (GICRE)
Reco: BUY
CMP: Rs 270
GICRE has been oscillating within the upward rising channel formation since it witnessed a breakout from the accumulation zone around 230. The recent pullback within the pattern provides yet another opportunity to add longs as the stock is now placed near the retracement support zone of its prior impulse. We expect the stock to retain its secular upmove and revisit its swing resistance zone around 330-335. Longs could be added with a stop below 252.
Stock: Ujjivan Financial Services Limited (UJJIVAN)
Reco: SELL
CMP: Rs 268
The stock remains under short- short unwinding cycle as the lower top lower bottom sequence continues on the absolute price scale. The recent consolidation near its swing support exhibits an Inverse Pennant formation which looks mature for a breakdown. With highest PE OI standing at 270 & fresh shorts addictions in the last two days the probability of a breakdown remains high. It has broken below its 10 DMA facing crucial resistance around 283/285 levels. On the downside, it can test 250-240 in the coming days.
Disclaimer: Analyst may or may not hold positions in one or more stocks


My Team
Matt
Manager
ID: 1
Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office number: 123
Eric
Engineer
ID: 2
Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GitHub:
github7
Isaac
Intern
ID: 3
Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>School: UNCC


Orange
Scenes
Animation
Bounding Box
Lighting
Lighting 2
Physics
GLTF
Textures
Water
Ship
BabylonJS
Particles
OBJ Loader
Physically based render
Physically based render2
Octree
WCafe
Billboard
Controls


Articles are typically used for more traditional long-form style of writing as you might find in a magazine article. They tend to cover more timeless topics and do not show up in your main feed.
For example, you might write an “About Me” page as an article and then link to it from the News section in the sidebar.
To create/edit/delete articles just visit the articles section of the admin.


Simple routines for loading / saving an ORG file.
Array of custom keywords.
These are any lines before the first headline
All of the headlines in the org file
This contains any in-buffer settings from the org-mode file. See orgmode.org/manual/In_002dbuffer-settings.html#In_002dbuffer-settings
All of the lines of the orgmode file
This contains in-buffer options; a special case of in-buffer settings.
Creates a new parser from the data in a given file
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 176 def self.load(fname) lines = IO.readlines(fname) return self.new(lines) end
I can construct a parser object either with an array of lines or with a single string that I will split along n boundaries.
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 85 def initialize(lines, offset=0) if lines.is_a? Array then @lines = lines elsif lines.is_a? String then @lines = lines.split("\n") else raise "Unsupported type for +lines+: #{lines.class}" end @custom_keywords = [] @headlines = Array.new @current_headline = nil @header_lines = [] @in_buffer_settings = { } @options = { } mode = :normal previous_line = nil table_header_set = false @lines.each do |line| case mode when :normal if (Headline.headline? line) then @current_headline = Headline.new line, self, offset @headlines << @current_headline else line = Line.new line, self # If there is a setting on this line, remember it. line.in_buffer_setting? do |key, value| store_in_buffer_setting key, value end if line.table_separator? then if previous_line and previous_line.paragraph_type == :table_row and !table_header_set previous_line.assigned_paragraph_type = :table_header table_header_set = true end end table_header_set = false if !line.table? mode = :code if line.begin_block? and line.block_type == "EXAMPLE" mode = :block_comment if line.begin_block? and line.block_type == "COMMENT" mode = :property_drawer if line.property_drawer_begin_block? if (@current_headline) then @current_headline.body_lines << line else @header_lines << line end end when :block_comment line = Line.new line, self if line.end_block? and line.block_type == "COMMENT" mode = :normal else line.assigned_paragraph_type = :comment end when :code # As long as we stay in code mode, force lines to be either blank or paragraphs. # Don't try to interpret structural items, like headings and tables. line = Line.new line, self if line.end_block? and line.block_type == "EXAMPLE" mode = :normal else line.assigned_paragraph_type = :paragraph unless line.blank? end if (@current_headline) then @current_headline.body_lines << line else @header_lines << line end when :property_drawer line = Line.new line, self if line.property_drawer_end_block? mode = :normal else line.assigned_paragraph_type = :property_drawer unless line.blank? end if (@current_headline) then @current_headline.body_lines << line else @header_lines << line end end # case previous_line = line end # @lines.each end
Regexp that recognizes words in custom_keywords.
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 32 def custom_keyword_regexp return nil if @custom_keywords.empty? Regexp.new("^(#{@custom_keywords.join('|')})\$") end
Returns true if we are to export footnotes
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 57 def export_footnotes? "t" == @options["f"] end
Returns true if we are to export heading numbers.
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 62 def export_heading_number? "t" == @options["num"] end
Should we export tables? Defaults to true, must be overridden with an explicit “nil”
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 73 def export_tables? "nil" != @options["|"] end
Returns true if we are to export todo keywords on headings.
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 52 def export_todo? "t" == @options["todo"] end
Should we skip exporting text before the first heading?
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 67 def skip_header_lines? "t" == @options["skip"] end
Converts the loaded org-mode file to HTML.
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 192 def to_html mark_trees_for_export export_options = { :decorate_title => true, :export_heading_number => export_heading_number?, :export_todo => export_todo?, :use_sub_superscripts => use_sub_superscripts?, :export_footnotes => export_footnotes? } export_options[:skip_tables] = true if not export_tables? output = "" output_buffer = HtmlOutputBuffer.new(output, export_options) if @in_buffer_settings["TITLE"] then # If we're given a new title, then just create a new line # for that title. title = Line.new(@in_buffer_settings["TITLE"], self) Parser.translate([title], output_buffer) end Parser.translate(@header_lines, output_buffer) unless skip_header_lines? # If we've output anything at all, remove the :decorate_title option. export_options.delete(:decorate_title) if (output.length > 0) @headlines.each do |headline| next if headline.export_state == :exclude case headline.export_state when :exclude # NOTHING when :headline_only Parser.translate(headline.body_lines[0, 1], output_buffer) when :all Parser.translate(headline.body_lines, output_buffer) end end rp = RubyPants.new(output) rp.to_html end
Saves the loaded orgmode file as a textile file.
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 182 def to_textile output = "" output << Line.to_textile(@header_lines) @headlines.each do |headline| output << headline.to_textile end output end
Should we export sub/superscripts? (_{foo}/^{foo}) only {} mode is currently supported.
# File lib/org-ruby/parser.rb, line 79 def use_sub_superscripts? @options["^"] != "nil" end


TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. GS1 Related B. GS2 Related POLITY 1. Delhi LG cannot simply sit on files and stultify governance: Justice Chandrachud 2. All physical contact not harassment: Delhi HC 3. Finance Commission’s changing roles, challenges over the years INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1. India hits out at China’s stance, as Beijing blocks UN move against Azhar C. GS3 Related ECONOMICS 1. India falls to 108 on World Economic Forum’s gender gap index INTERNAL SECURITY 1. India offers to share real-time maritime data D. GS4 Related E. Prelims Fact F. UPSC Prelims Practice Questions G. UPSC Mains Practice Questions
Nothing here for Today!!!
1. Delhi LG cannot simply sit on files and stultify governance: Justice Chandrachud
Context:
- Five-judge Constitution Bench hearing a batch of nine appeals filed by the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party government against an August 4, 2016 judgment of the Delhi High Court.
- Controversy : proviso to Article 239AA (4), which mandates that in case of a difference of opinion between the LG and the Council of Ministers, the former has to refer the issue to the President. In the meanwhile, while that decision is pending before the President, the LG, if the matter is urgent, can use his discretion to take immediate action.
High Court order:
- It declared the LG to have “complete control of all matters regarding National Capital Territory of Delhi, and nothing will happen without the concurrence of the LG.”
- LG has special powers greater than the President, greater than other Governors of States.

- The Kejriwal government wants the Supreme Court to lay down the law on whether the LG can unilaterally administer the National Capital without being bound by the “aid and advice” of the elected government.
In news:
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud oral observations regarding the role of The Lieutenant Governor:
- The Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi cannot stultify proposals or schemes forwarded by the Council of Ministers to him by simply sitting on them.
- The LG is bound to pass the difference of opinions [between the LG and the Delhi Council of Ministers] to the President for early resolution.
Constitutional Status:
- The 69th Amendment of the Constitution in 1992 gave the National Capital of Delhi special status with its own democratically elected government and legislative assembly.
- Sub-section (4) of Article 239AA mandates that a Council of Ministers shall aid and advice the LG in his functions regarding laws made by the Legislative Assembly.
Various opinions:
- The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra , prima facie said that the Delhi government’s ability to “aid and advice” the LG is limited to subjects other than public order, police and land in the National Capital. It said that the proviso to Article 239AA (4), on plain reading, seems to give primacy to the LG.
- Justice Ashok Bhushan remarked that the LG is entitled to take a different view and is not bound by the aid and advice of the Delhi Cabinet.
Counter arguments:
- Subramanium alleged that the LG has misused the discretion in this proviso to block governance to such an extent that decisions from appointment of teachers in municipal schools to opening of mohalla clinics have been pending for over a year.
- The Chief Secretary and other officers, without applying their minds to the various welfare proposals and schemes, simply forward the files to the LG, where it remains indeterminately.
- The “extraordinary discretion” of the LG is confined to special circumstances and not in everything.
2. All physical contact not harassment: Delhi HC
3. Finance Commission’s changing roles, challenges over the years
Context:
- The government will soon constitute the Fifteenth Finance Commission , as per normal practice, a couple of years before the end of the five-year period during which the Commission’s recommendations are valid.
Constitutions provisions:
- Article 280 of the Constitution requires that a Finance Commission be constituted to recommend the distribution of the net proceeds of taxes between the Centre and states, and among the states.
- The framers of the Constitution were seeking to address the vertical imbalance between the taxation powers and expenditure and responsibilities of the federal government and the states, and the horizontal imbalance, or inequality, between states that were at different stages of development.
- Ensuring inclusiveness is, therefore, a key mandate of the Finance Commission.
- That means assigning weights to things like population, the fiscal distance between the top ranked states and the others, etc. It is not that the best-performing state will be allocated the highest share – even if delivery execution and governance are better – rather, the effort will be to narrow the development gap between states.
- The Finance Commission Rules, 1951, lay down the criteria for being members of the constitutional body: those having special knowledge of finance and accounts of government with wide knowledge and experience in financial matters and in administration, or with special knowledge of economics, and those who have been qualified to be appointed as a judge of a High Court.
Challenges ahead:
- As the Fifteenth Commission is set to be appointed, the criteria for distribution will be reviewed.
- The question is whether the commission will take into account the level of collections by each state after the roll out of the GST or not?
- The challenge this time will be the fact that unlike in the past, the share of net tax proceeds between the central government and states is almost equal.
- After the last Commission’s recommendation to distribute 42%, raising the bar on higher transfer of resources will have a much bigger impact on the federal government.
- The twelfth Finance Commission had suggested that it was time now to perhaps look at a Constitutional amendment to fix a ceiling on the distribution of the net tax proceeds, with the Finance Commission arbitrating on distributing tax proceeds among states.
- The Commission itself reckons that its biggest role has been to uphold the country’s federal structure, and to be an architect of fiscal restructuring – from being mainly an arbitrator between the Centre and states.
Category: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1. India hits out at China’s stance, as Beijing blocks UN move against Azhar
In news:
- China once again blocked an attempt by the U.S., U.K., and France to place Masood Azhar in the list of global terrorists of the Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council citing “no consensus” as a ground for its objection.
-
India’s response:
- India hit out at double standards in the war on terrorism, hours after China blocked a move at the United Nations Security Council to place Masood Azhar, the Pakistan-based chief of the Jaish-e-Mohammed, in a list of global terrorists.
- India’s strong response did not name China but hinted at “one country” that had hurt the global campaign to ban the terror mastermind who is blamed for several attacks against India, including the Pathankot airbase attack of 2016.
1. India falls to 108 on World Economic Forum’s gender gap index
Context:
- Global Gender Gap Report
- Report published by World Economic Forum
Highlights of the report:
- According to the report, the gap between the achievements and well-being of men and women widened in the past year
-
At current rates, it will take 100 years before women achieve equality in the four areas
measured by the WEF:
- Political empowerment
- Economic participation
- Health
- Education
Rankings:
- The US fell to 49th among the 144 countries ranked, down from 45th last year and 23rd just 11 years ago. The country is only 77% of the way to gender parity in economic opportunity, a gap that’s been narrowing, but not as quickly as in other countries.
- India, which sank to No. 108 overall, down 10 places from 2006 was the reverse of the US, with high rankings for women’s political empowerment but near the bottom in health, education and economic participation. Economics is a particular area of concern, because women do a disproportionate amount of unpaid work, like childcare.
- Ranked 100 overall, China was No. 144—dead last—for gender parity when it came to women’s health. One metric was life expectancy: Chinese women outlive men by less than two years on average, compared with a global average of five years. While about 70 percent of Chinese women participate in the work force, they earn only 64% of men’s wages.
- Women in No. 1 ranked Iceland, for instance, may soon be equal to men in their contribution to the national economy
1. India offers to share real-time maritime data
Nothing here for Today!!!
|
Nothing here for Today!!! |
F. Practice Questions for UPSC Prelims Exam
- All the currency notes
- All the currency notes except the one rupee note
- All the currency notes except the hundred rupee note
- Only notes of Rs. 10 and above
G. UPSC Mains Practice Questions
GS Paper II
- Hard power without soft power stirs up resentments and enmities; soft power without hard power is a confession of weakness. Critically Analyze.
GS Paper III
- “Gender equality has to be looked at in a holistic way” Discuss.


sensors = []
for locale in monitored_locales:
for sensor_class, name, icon in SENSOR_TYPES:
sensors.append(globals()[sensor_class](data, name, icon, locale))
add_devices(sensors, True)
if city and state and country:
_LOGGER.debug(
"Using city, state, and country: %s, %s, %s", city, state, country)
location_id = ",".join((city, state, country))
data = AirVisualData(
Client(api_key), city=city, state=state, country=country,
show_on_map=show_on_map)
else:


Test page for loading multiple images of different sizes, force them to 32 x 32, and then load the data into a tensor as the xTrainingData for a Neural Network.
(Labels would have to be dealt with using a coordinated text file!)
Reshaped image -->
All images below fixed 100 x 100 and pixelated if low resolution


Now from a New URL
https://infl.at/
https://infl.at/
Get the new version there.
Uninstall this old version.


Violent crime: Swedish police outline plan to deal with 'exceptional situation'
by The LocalPolice have announced a 'special national incident' to look into violent crime in Sweden, with the head of the task force saying he expects a tangible impact within the next six months.
Operation Hoarfrost, as the operation has been named, has been launched in order to reduce the number of explosions and shootings in Sweden and to increase the feeling of public safety.
The head of national police operations department Noa, Mats Löfving, took the decision on Sunday evening and said that the shooting of two teenagers the day before was "the final straw".
"It is very rare that we use these special methods. There has to be an exceptional situation," said Löfving.
No arrests have yet been made in connection with the shooting, which left one 15-year-old dead and another in hospital in a serious condition.
The special national incident relates to violent crime in general and is not limited to any geographical area or specific incident. But Löfving said the shooting on Sunday was "the straw that broke the camel's back".
"We saw a weekend in Malmö that is unacceptable, with an execution-like murder of a 15-year-old boy," he told the press conference.
The special national incident means that a dedicated task force will look into violent crime, with the task force's commander-in-chief granted special powers to make decisions and allocate resources.
Four specific goals were outlined at the press conference: to reduce the number of explosions and shootings significantly, to reduce the number of people in criminal gangs through carrying out arrests and convictions, to seize weapons and explosives, and to increase the feeling of safety among members of the public.
Stefan Hector, who will take on the role of commander-in-chief, said he expected that the special incident would have an impact "within six months".
Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said he welcomed the measure, telling the TT news agency: "It is an important signal. Malmö residents should not feel that they are alone in this, but rather that this is a matter for the whole of Sweden."
While Sweden's overall crime rate and homicide rate remains low from an international and historical perspective, there has been an increase in recent years in the proportion of murders linked to criminal gangs. And the number of explosions has increased, accounting for 162 of a total of 190 incidents of 'destruction causing public endangerment' last year.
The briefing explaining the special national incident followed an earlier press conference from Malmö police in which they outlined the measures underway in the city.
Malmö's police chief said at that conference that both the victims of Sunday's shooting were previously known to police, and that an important step in crime prevention would be cracking down on the local drugs trade.
The role of the drugs trade in violent crime was a concern echoed by the prime minister, who told TT: "It is important that we as a society think about how we act, since organized crime survives to a large extent due to drug trafficking".


DummyAuth
You have been successfully identified as {{ profile }}.
Note that this application has only verified your identity using your IndieAuth provider as set on your homepage. You cannot do anything else using this application.
Log out once you are tired of reading this message.


I am a undergraudate student at Rajasthan Technical University, Kota.I am a Microsoft Student Partner. I love to use technology to solve real life problems.
Hey! My name is KESHAV AGRAWAL and I'm a web developer with a passion for front end development and design. I'm currently a first year student at Rajasthan Technical University,KOTA
Northeastern University pursuing a degree in information science with a minor in interaction design. I aspire toward a career that will allow me to channel my creativity through crafting beautiful software and engaging experiences.
When I'm not on the computer,
I Love Music
I enjoy playing chess, and PUBG.TL;DR? Self Proclamations:
Web Developer
App Developer
Presentator
What I Do
Design
Design isn't just what a product looks like and feels like on the outside. Design encompasses the internal functionality of a product as well as the overall user experience. I strive to design interfaces and experiences that people can enjoy on all digital mediums.
Development
With a strong foundation in computer science, I'm passionate about web design and development, and interested in mobile app development. As I grow as a developer, I hope to write clean, readable code that can be used by others and leveraged to create beautiful software.
Involvement
At RTU, I'm a microsoft student partnerMicrosoft as well as a Event Oranizer for the microsoft technologies course. Previously, I've been involved with the club water polo team, the resident student association, and the ski and snowboard club.
Check out my résumé!
What I've Done
I have been completed my web development course,and now i can develop a beautiful website easily
Get In Touch!
Whether you have an idea for a project or just want to chat, feel free to shoot me an email!


{{ if .Site.Data.homepage.projects.enable }} Blog My most recent blog posts. {{ range first 3 (where site.RegularPages.ByDate.Reverse "Type" "in" site.Params.mainSections )}} {{ partial "postbox.html" . }} {{ end }} To see an archive of all of my blog posts, click here. Icons in homepage image made by Freepik and ultimatearm from www.flaticon.com {{ end }}
My most recent blog posts.


11 January 2021
You met with Dr. Matthew Marsh
You agreed:
- to spend 10 minutes every day writing down how you feel
- to think of 3 good things that happened that day, and write them down too
Keep track of these however you feel most comfortable - in a journal, or a notes app on your phone, anything else that works for you.
Clinical terms that came up:
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a talking therapy that can help you manage your problems by changing the way you think and behave.
Read more on the NHS website.
Any questions?
You can get in touch with your care co-ordinator via the reception team here:
Do you need immediate help?
Urgent advice: Call our Crisis Team on 0800 169 0398 if:
- you are having suicidal thoughts and feel like you are a risk to yourself
- you are worried that someone you care for is at risk
Your appointment history
Appointment summaries:
- show what you agreed with your clinician
- give an explanation of any clinical terms that came up
- allow you to ask your clinical team any questions you need to.
9th November 2020
Appointment with Dr. Matthew Marsh.Scheduling appointments
Update your free times so we can assign appointments that don't clash with your schedule.


This is my About Me page to dive deeper into coding!
Top 10 favorite Movies
- How to steal a million.
- Breakfast at tiffany's.
- StarWars(all of them)
- Run lola run.
- Amilia.
- Thin red line
- Terminator
- SuperTroopers
- (original 3) Superman Movies.
- On the waterfront.


like the video and ask your questions in comment secation,and subscribe Easy Toutorials.
like the video and ask your questions in comment secation,and subscribe Easy Toutorials.
like the video and ask your questions in comment secation,and subscribe Easy Toutorials.
like the video and ask your questions in comment secation,and subscribe Easy Toutorials.
like the video and ask your questions in comment secation,and subscribe Easy Toutorials.
like the video and ask your questions in comment secation,and subscribe Easy Toutorials.
like the video and ask your questions in comment secation,and subscribe Easy Toutorials.
Get free domain and free web hosting
contact us$10/month
$0/month
$50/month
$200/month
You may see the following items in other company profiles or within the samples and templates below.
’Twas brillig and the slithey toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
’Twas brillig and the slithey toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
’Twas brillig and the slithey toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


WITNESS LIST Natural Resources Committee April 5, 2005 - 1:30P SB 93 ON: Hagert, Eduardo (Senator Eliot Shapleigh), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Metzger, Luke (Texas Public Interest Research Group), Austin, TX O'Brien, Beth (Public Citizen), Austin, TX Reed, Cyrus (Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club), Austin, TX Rodriguez, Jennifer (Liquid Environmental Solutions), Austin, TX On: Wheatley, Wade (TCEQ), Austin, TX SB 297 ON: Schaeffer, Brian (Texas Associatoin of Campground Owners Texas Association of Campgrouond Owners), Arlington, TX SB 352 FOR: Grant, John (Colorado River Municipal Water DIstrict), Big Spring, TX Kelly, Mary (Environmental Ddefense), Austin, TX ON: Hartmann, Steve (University of Texas System), Midland, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Adams, Janet (Jeff Davis County UWCD & Presido County UWCD), Fort Davis, TX Brown, Kirby (Texas Wildlife Association), San Antonio, TX Hess, Myron (National Wildlife Foundation), Austin, TX Howe, Billy (Texas Farm Bureau), Austin, TX Marsden, Julia (Leauge of Women Voters of Texas) Ponridge, Eleanor (Self), Austin, TX Reed, Cyrus (Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club), Austin, TX Stephens, V.A. (Tom Beard, Brewster County Groundwater Conservation District), Austin, TX SB 459 ON: Patterson, Jerry (GLO), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: On: Croft, Hal (GLO), Austin, TX SB 489 Registering, but not testifying: On: Stiles, Frances (Texas Parks and Wildlife - Boating Section), Austin, TX SB 564 FOR: Evans, Orlynn (Self), Hutto, TX Schneider, Robin (Texas Campaign for the Environment), Austin, TX AGAINST: Fisher, Jon (Texas Chemical Council), Austin, TX Miksa, Mary (Texas Associaton of Business), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: English, B. Trek (North East Action Group), Austin, TX Metzer, Luke (Texas Public Interest Research Group), Austin, TX O'Brien, Beth (Public Citizen), Austin, TX Reed, Cyrus (Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club), Austin, TX Against: Hazlewood, Steve (The Dow Cemical Company), Austin, TX Rodriguez, Jennifer (Apple Computer), Austin, TX Shields II, Brad (Texas Retailers Association), Austin, TX Providing written testimony: On: Aborgast, Tod (DELL, Inc.), Round Rock, TX Bowman, Heather (Hewlett Packard Company), Washington, DC Bowman, Heather (Hewlett Packard Company), Washington, DC Camacho, Chrissy (American Electronics Associaton), Austin, TX Goss, Richard (The Electronic Industries Alliance), Arlington, TX SB 570 ON: Patterson, Jerry (General Land Office), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: On: Letteri, Noelle (Texas General Land Office), Austin, TX SB 738 ON: Perdue, Stephanie (TCEQ), Austin, TX SB 739 ON: Sarahan, Paul (TCEQ), Austin, TX SB 740 AGAINST: Pickett, Ellis (Surfrider Foundation Texas Chapter), Liberty, TX ON: Patterson, Jerry (General Land Office), Austin, TX SB 767 FOR: Beck, Ken (Self), Volente, TX Connally, Kevin (Travis County), Austin, TX Sonleitner, Karen Commissioner (Travis County Commissioners Court), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Brown, Kirby (Texas Wildlife Association), San Antonio, TX Reed, Cyrus (Lonestar Chapter of Sierra Club), Austin, TX SB 840 FOR: Gilman, Holly (Comel County Water Oriented Recreation District), Austin, TX SB 1017 Registering, but not testifying: For: Allwright, Buffalo (Lower Trinity Groundwater Conservation District), Goodrich, TX Baker, Randall (One Five 0 Water Supply Corporation & Mercy Water Supply Corporation), Cleavland, TX Fontenot, Todd Commissioner (Liberty County), Liberty, TX Pickett, Ellis (Self), Liberty, TX Vann, Leo (Lower Trinity Ground Water Conservation District), Coldspring, TX SB 1102 Registering, but not testifying: For: O'Brien, Beth (Public Citizen), Austin, TX SB 1103 FOR: Billingsley, Grant (Wagnor & Brown, LTD.), Midland, TX Zabel, Tom (TXOGA / TIPRO), Houston, TX ON: Patterson, Jerry (General Land Office), Austin, TX Rogers, Dwain (General Land Office), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Allday, Martin (Goldstin Oil Company), Austin, TX Allday, Marty (Enbridge Eneregy), Austin, TX Haynes, Adam (TIPRO), Austin, TX Hodges, Ken (Texas Farm Bureau), Austin, TX Sebree, Ben (Texas Oil & Gas Association), Austin, TX Stevens, Bill (Texas Alliance of Energy Producers), Austin, TX On: Aston, LaNell (General Land Office) DeYoung, Kathy (Copano Energy), Houston, TX Letteri, Noelle (General Land Office), Austin, TX SB 1116 FOR: Laughman, Bob (Aqua America; Aqua Texas), Austin, TX SB 1130 FOR: Beveridge, Douglas (TLMA), Austin, TX Scott III, E.O. (Trey) (Petty Ranch Company), San Antonio, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Schlink, Kitty Sue (Texas Land & Mineral Owners Association), Austin, TX On: Ross, Charles (Railroad Commission), Austin, TX Sebree, Ben (Texas Oil & Gas Association), Austin, TX Tintera, John (Railroad Commission) SB 1281 FOR: Borowski, Casey (Texas Molecular Limited Partnership), The Woodlands, TX O'Brien, Beth (Public Citizen), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: English, B. Trek (North East Action Grouop), Austin, TX Metzer, Luke (Texas Public Interest Research Group), Austin, TX Nanee, Clay (Newpark Resources, Inc.), Austin, TX Rodriguez, Jennifer (Liquid Environmental Solutions), Austin, TX SB 1290 FOR: Johnson, Bill (Northcutt, Inc. - HC Refrigerant Products), Wichita, KS McGuire, Mike (HC Refrigerant), Hondo, TX SB 1413 ON: Hardee, Jackie (TCEQ), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: English, B. Trek (North East Action Group), Austin, TX SB 1455 Registering, but not testifying: For: Baker, Sarah (Save Our Spring Alliance, Inc.), Austin, TX Hays, David (Williamson County, Williamson County Consultation Foundation), Georgetown, TX Hess, Myron (National Wilflife Foundation), Austin, TX Metzer, Luke (Texas public Interest Research Group), Austin, TX O'Brien, Beth (Public Citizen), Austin, TX Reed, Cyrus (Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club), Austin, TX SB 1542 FOR: Morriss, James (Lone Star Steel Company), Austin, TX Vargas, Hector (AEA), Dallas, TX AGAINST: O'Brien, Beth (Public Citizen), Austin, TX Oldham, Melanie (Self), Arlington, TX Sisk, Cathy (Harris County), Houston, TX ON: Gonzales - Gromatzky, Lydia (TCEQ), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Allday, Marty (Enbridge Energy), Austin, TX DeYoung, Kathy (Copano Energy), Houston, TX Hazlewood, Steve (The Dow Chemical Company), Austin, TX Howe, Billy (Texas Farm Bureau), Austin, TX Morphew, Cindy (Texas Oil & Gas Association), Austin, TX Mullins, Russell (Association of Electric Companies of Texas, Inc.), Austin, TX Against: Baker, Sarah (Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance), Austin, TX Exans, Orlynn (MT Hutto Aware Citizen), Hutto, TX Hess, Myron (National Wildlife Federation), Austin, TX Jones, Andy (Self), Austin, TX Kelly, Mary (Environmental Defense), Austin, TX Metzger, Luke (Texas Public Interest Research Group), Austin, TX Palmer, Corky (Galveston Bay Foundation), Winchester, TX Ponridge, Eleanor (Hamilton Pool Rd. Scenic Corridor Coalition - HPRSCC), Austin, TX Reed, Cyrus (Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club), Austin, TX Schneider, Robin (Texas Campaign for the Environment), Austin, TX Steidinger, Barbara (Citizens Against Landfill Location, Donna, Texas), Donn, TX Stokes, Bob (Galveston Bay Foundation), Webster, TX On: Miksa, Mary (Texas Association of Business), Austin, TX Providing written testimony: For: Fisher, Jon (Texas Chemical Council), Austin, TX Stern, Wiley (City of Waco), Waco, TX Against: English, B. Trek (North East Action Group), Austin, TX Lowerre, Richard (Kleberg County), Austin, TX Marsden, Julia (League of Women Voters of Texas), Austin, TX McAfee, Melanie (Barr Mansion & Artison Ballroom), Austin, TX SB 1667 FOR: Holmes, Craig (Mesteria Uranium LLC), Austin, TX Jacobi, Rick (Dan Snow Lotus, LLC), Austin, TX Noble, Rod (County of Andrews), Andrews, TX AGAINST: Wallace, Julia (Andrews County), Andrews, TX Weston, Michele (Self), Elgin, TX ON: Dolgener, Richard Andrews County Judge (Self), Andrews, TX Jablonski, Susan (TCEQ), Austin, TX Mendoza, Tristan (Texas Radiation Online), Austin, TX O'Brien, Beth (Public Citizen), Austin, TX Ratliff, Richard (Texas Dept. of State Health Services), Austin, TX Woodward, Michael (Waste Control Specialist), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: On: Childes, Hayden (LBB), Austin, TX Seni, Steven (The Railroad Commission), Austin, TX Providing written testimony: For: Tompkins, James (Self), Andrews, TX Against: Gray, Thora (Self), Austin, TX Marsden, Julia (League of Women Voters of Texas), Austin, TX Reed, Cyrus (Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club), Austin, TX On: Snow, Dan (Self), Andrews, TX SJR 40 ON: Patterson, Jerry Land Commissioner (General Land Office), Austin, TX Rogers, Dwain (General Land Office), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Hodges, Ken (Texas Farm Bureau), Austin, TX On: Aston, LaNell (General Land Office), Austin, TX


We're sorry, something went wrong and the team has been alerted to the issue. You may try again now, or if you experience repeated difficulty please try again later.


Go to the source code of this file.
Typedefs | |
| typedef struct le_timer * | le_timer_Ref_t |
| typedef void(* | le_timer_ExpiryHandler_t) (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
Functions | |
| le_timer_Ref_t | le_timer_Create (const char *nameStr) |
| void | le_timer_Delete (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
| le_result_t | le_timer_SetHandler (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef, le_timer_ExpiryHandler_t handlerFunc) |
| le_result_t | le_timer_SetInterval (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef, le_clk_Time_t interval) |
| le_result_t | le_timer_SetMsInterval (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef, size_t interval) |
| le_result_t | le_timer_SetRepeat (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef, uint32_t repeatCount) |
| le_result_t | le_timer_SetContextPtr (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef, void *contextPtr) |
| void * | le_timer_GetContextPtr (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
| uint32_t | le_timer_GetExpiryCount (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
| le_result_t | le_timer_Start (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
| le_result_t | le_timer_Stop (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
| void | le_timer_Restart (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
| bool | le_timer_IsRunning (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
Detailed Description
Legato Timer API include file.
Copyright (C) Sierra Wireless Inc. Use of this work is subject to license.
Typedef Documentation
| typedef void(* le_timer_ExpiryHandler_t) (le_timer_Ref_t timerRef) |
Prototype for timer expiry handler function.
- Parameters
-
timerRef Timer that has expired
| typedef struct le_timer* le_timer_Ref_t |
Timer object. Created by le_timer_Create().
Function Documentation
| le_timer_Ref_t le_timer_Create | ( | const char * | nameStr | ) |
Create the timer object.
- Returns
- Reference to the timer object.
- Parameters
-
[in] nameStr Name of the timer.
| void le_timer_Delete | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef | ) |
Delete the timer object.
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Delete this timer object
| void* le_timer_GetContextPtr | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef | ) |
Get context pointer for the timer.
This can be used when the timer expires to retrieve data that was previously set.
- Returns
- Context pointer, which could be NULL if it was not set.
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Set interval for this timer object.
| uint32_t le_timer_GetExpiryCount | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef | ) |
Get the expiry count of a timer.
The count is returned for currently running and idle timers. The expiry count is reset every time the timer is (re)started.
- Returns
- Expiry count, or zero if the timer has never expired.
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Set interval for this timer object.
| bool le_timer_IsRunning | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef | ) |
Is the timer currently running?
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Is this timer object currently running?
| void le_timer_Restart | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef | ) |
Re-start the timer.
Start the given timer. If the timer is currently running, it will be stopped and then started. If the timer is not currently running, it will be started.
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef (Re)start this timer object.
| le_result_t le_timer_SetContextPtr | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef, |
| void * | contextPtr | ||
| ) |
Set context pointer for the timer.
This can be used to pass data to the timer when it expires.
- Returns
- LE_OK on success
- LE_BUSY if the timer is currently running
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Set interval for this timer object. [in] contextPtr Context Pointer.
| le_result_t le_timer_SetHandler | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef, |
| le_timer_ExpiryHandler_t | handlerFunc | ||
| ) |
Set the timer expiry handler function.
If the handler is NULL, then the previous handler will be removed.
- Returns
- LE_OK on success
- LE_BUSY if the timer is currently running
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Set expiry handler for this timer object. [in] handlerFunc Handler function to call on expiry.
| le_result_t le_timer_SetInterval | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef, |
| le_clk_Time_t | interval | ||
| ) |
Set the timer interval.
Timer will expire after the interval has elapsed.
- Returns
- LE_OK on success
- LE_BUSY if the timer is currently running
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Set interval for this timer object. [in] interval Timer interval.
| le_result_t le_timer_SetMsInterval | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef, |
| size_t | interval | ||
| ) |
Set the timer interval using milliseconds.
Timer will expire after the interval has elapsed.
- Returns
- LE_OK on success
- LE_BUSY if the timer is currently running
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Set interval for this timer object. [in] interval Timer interval in milliseconds.
| le_result_t le_timer_SetRepeat | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef, |
| uint32_t | repeatCount | ||
| ) |
Set how many times the timer will repeat.
Timer will repeat the given number of times. A value of 0 means repeat indefinitely. The default is 1, so that a one-shot timer is the default.
- Returns
- LE_OK on success
- LE_BUSY if the timer is currently running
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Set interval for this timer object. [in] repeatCount Number of times the timer will repeat (0 = forever).
| le_result_t le_timer_Start | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef | ) |
Start the timer.
Start the given timer. The timer must not be currently running.
- Returns
- LE_OK on success
- LE_BUSY if the timer is already running
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Start this timer object.
| le_result_t le_timer_Stop | ( | le_timer_Ref_t | timerRef | ) |
Stop the timer.
Stop the given timer. The timer must be running.
- Returns
- LE_OK on success
- LE_FAULT if the timer is not currently running
- Note
- If an invalid timer object is given, the process exits.
- Parameters
-
[in] timerRef Stop this timer object.


Loading Patterns...
Android Pattern Visualizer
Random
Sequential
This project would not have been possible without
Vivus
,
Screener
,
Google EarthView
and the
pretty radio button by skeddles
Visualizer
|
Generator


--- layout: post title: Shooting storyboard date: '2014-06-05T07:30:46+02:00' categories: - Storyboards picture_url: https://film-Storyboards.tumblr.com/post/87888224310 ---


Fastify REST AWS Lambda Source
Fastify AWS Lambda provider for the travetto rest module.
This module provides support for Fastify REST Source + RESTful AWS Lambda. This produces an instance of RestApplication that is able to integrate with AWS appropriately.


HAN CHIU, MD
Dr. Chiu has over twenty five years of experience in the life sciences industry as an entrepreneur, researcher, and venture investor. Most recently Dr. Chiu has focused his attention on fixing the health care system by creating new pathways for innovation and change in medicine. Vavici Ventures the first Liberty Fund is key part of this strategy. The fund concept, which was developed as part of Dr. Chiu’s capacity as Business Advisor for the Clinical Excellence Research Center at Stanford, strives to work with thought leading institutions to build and implement health care models that can lower costs and improve outcomes. VAVICI, the first Vavici Ventures company, was established to end the obesity and diabetes crisis, by enabling all primary care doctors to effectively treat this scourge.
Dr. Chiu is currently the founding and managing partner for CMX Capital, LLC, a San Diego based venture fund that is currently focused on providing advisory services to investors and life science companies. As part of the advisory service Dr. Chiu can and has taken operating positions to assist companies, including CSO and VP Business Development for Bridgetech Holdings International a life science company that licensed US biotechnologies, devices, and diagnostics for development and sales in China and Taiwan.
Prior to founding CMX Capital Fund, Dr. Chiu founded its predecessor Novel Bioventures Advisors, where he served as Managing Director and built the investment team that invested in seven companies in less than two years. His investments included Cellerant, Transmedics, Predix, ARYx, Omeros, Capnia, and Intrabiotics. In addition Dr. Chiu worked with the investment team to invest in a variety of venture and hedge funds including some of the top life science funds in the business.
He was a Venture Partner at Forward Ventures, where he sourced and evaluated numerous private equity investments and served as either Director or board observer for MedicineNet, Genicon Sciences, Arizeke, and Nereus Biosciences.
Dr. Chiu has both clinical development and marketing experience with several pharmaceuticals from two major pharmaceutical companies, Schering-Plough and Novartis. He was part of the founding oncology team for Novartis Oncology and led the effort to put together the Oncology team’s first sales force and product launch. He has launched products both domestically and internationally including Caelyx/Doxil, a product for treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi’s Sarcoma and other solid tumors; and Sandostatin, a Novartis product for the treatment of Acromegaly and GEP tumors. Dr. Chiu was the first to successfully create and implement a comprehensive and collaborative program, with a major medical society, to identify and treat patients with a chronic disease, Acromegaly.
Dr. Chiu received his M.D. from Stanford and an M.B.A. from the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. He received his B.A. in Biochemistry from Cornell and is a member of the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the Community Board of Advisors Stein Institute for Research on Aging.


In this lair there is a boot. One that is fun to have, but not to wear. It is a boot only men and women can yield, but only fits a child.  But beware your search. There are traps laid by the Ice God. Once you find this boot, learn the owner of this boot.


Having more time to be creative is the key to great inventions. We believe that giving developers the chance to work without distractions is the most important thing that can lead to extraordinary creations. Our mission is to provide a platform that lets you concentrate on the process of creation, instead of the administrative tasks that get in the way of it.
That’s why we created Bitrise. But we’re not alone in this! We love how Felix Krause sought to solve this problem by creating fastlane. So by the combined force of earth, water, fire and wind… we integrated the whole fastlane toolkit - booyah! How cool is that!
!!! note “Bitrise offline CLI” We have an open source, offline CLI, which can be used in a similar way as fastlane. If you’re interested, you can find the CLI’s website here, and its GitHub repository here. You can use this CLI to run your bitrise configurations locally, which can include runing fastlane too as part of the build, as described below ;)
What is fastlane?
fastlane lets you define and run your deployment pipelines for different environments.
It helps you unify and automate your app’s release process.
fastlane connects all fastlane tools
and third party tools, like CocoaPods and xctool.
fastlane is a collection of ruby gems that cover the most usual tasks required during iOS app development and upload or update to the App Store.
How to get started?
Using fastlane for your workflow is easy as pie. Just add the Fastlane
step to your
workflow,
after the Git Clone
step (and any other dependency step).
!!! note
You should also add/keep the Certificate and profile installer
step in the workflow,
to download your .p12 Certificates and Provisioning Profiles uploaded to bitrise.io
and to install them. Even if you don’t upload your files to bitrise.io
and instead you use a fastlane tool to manage your code signing files you should
still keep this step in the workflow. Read more about iOS Code Signing using
third party tools.
With adding the fastlane step we ensure that you are running on the latest fastlane version, as it is pre-installed on all our VMs. Inside the step you can set the fastlane action and we will run it automatically every time you push a new code change.
For more configuration options see the Fastlane
step’s description in the Workflow Editor!
!!! note If you want to use bitrise.io to store your code signing files, you should just follow the iOS Code Signing guide here.
What’s next?
fastlane’s greatness comes from its ability to define different lanes for your different deployment needs - hence the name.
You can combine this with Bitrise and run separate lanes for separate branches, automatically.
For example you can run a lane for every code push onto the master
branch to update your
screenshots and metadata on the App Store and to release the distribution version,
and a separate lane for the develop
branch to deploy your test releases
and all the others to ensure that nobody has broken anything.
You can simply clone the workflow as many times as you want to,
and use the Trigger
feature of bitrise.io to define
which Workflow to be selected for this branch / tag / pull request.
You can find more information about the Triggers feature in the
Control what to build when, with the Trigger Map guide.
We hope that you are as happy as we are to have this amazing tool inside Bitrise.
And as always, happy building!


§188-43 Hinana and oopu, taking of, prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to fish for, or attempt to take any of the fish known as hinana or oopu, by means of traps or weirs. [L 1937, c 41, §§1, 2; RL 1945, §1235; RL 1955, §21-76; HRS §188-43; am L 1981, c 85, §50]


Who let 11 o'clock cut in front of all the other morning hours? What? It didn't?
3/25/2009, 10:59:40 AM
Favs: 0
Retweets: 0
link--- layout: tweet ---
Who let 11 o'clock cut in front of all the other morning hours? What? It didn't?
3/25/2009, 10:59:40 AM
Favs: 0
Retweets: 0
link


The power of blockchain is often characterized as one that enables two parties to engage in “trustless” transactions. Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about what exactly that means.
Let’s check the tape then. What’s the actual definition of “trustless”? I went to the dictionary and checked it out.
According to Dictionary.com, the word “trustless” means “untrustworthy, deceitful; distrusting, wary, suspicious.”
Uh, that’s supposed to make me feel better about blockchain?
We, as an industry, need to rethink this.
I started thinking about this obvious conundrum a couple weeks ago when I saw notorious uber Bitcoin maximalist Bobby Lee give a highly entertaining speech in Shanghai. I then came across this strange feeling that something is just amiss about the way we talk about this topic in general once again while researching the 4th episode in our Block Runners podcast series about “Proof of Work” (coming out soon!).
We need to wrap our heads around this concept of “trustlessness” because it lays at the very foundation of why blockchain technology is revolutionary. As The Economist put it in an article on the 7th anniversary of Satoshi Nakomoto’s whitepaper in 2015, it is this aspect which “makes possible a currency without a central bank.”
Thankfully, I’m not the first person to call out the misnomer that using the word “trustless” in reference to a blockchain is. For that, I look to the wonderful Preethi Kasireddy. Her February 5 Medium article on the subject, “ELI5: What do we mean by ‘blockchains are trustless’?” is a great resource.
A truly “trustless” transaction can only occur when the two parties engaging in the transaction are in physical proximity to one another. All other non-present transactions require some form of intermediary to replace the trust that can only be earned by actually looking someone in the eye and shaking their hand while you are engaging in an exchange of value.
However, this setup is clearly limited and in no way facilitates the scaling of a global payment network. So how exactly does blockchain help to revolutionize the transfer of value instantaneously and globally? Is this conceit a myth? Not really. We’re just using the wrong words to talk about what is going on here.
To quote Ms. Kasireddy:
In a “centralized” system, we trust a single third party (e.g. Chase Bank) to act as the intermediary who guarantees those two properties [sender authenticity & currency validity] ; in a “decentralized” system, our trust is placed elsewhere, namely in public-key cryptography and a “consensus mechanism” that allows us to determine the truth.
Essentially, instead of trusting in a centralized party, when we conduct a transaction on a public blockchain, we are placing our trust in an entire ecosystem of distributed trust.
Or as Kasireddy puts it, using a public blockchain means that we are “trusting everyone in aggregate.” All of the developers, miners, and users of that blockchain that have ever existed up to that point in the distributed ledger.
It’s kind of like jumping into a swimming pool full of warm water, whereas dealing with a bank is like jumping into a potentially ice cold bath full of hammerhead and Great White sharks.
You tell me which one you’d prefer.
This page is synchronized from the post: On Trust & Blockchains


{% extends "polls/base.html" %} {% block title %}
| S. No. | Question | Date Created/Modified | Particpate | Edit/Delete | View Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{forloop.counter}} | {{ques.question}} | {{ques.pub_date}} | Click to Particpate | Click here to modify the question | Click here to view Result |


1. LOGIN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>2. DELIVERY ADDRESS
jitendar kumar Mob:8949104324
Diit in tejmandi,Station Road,
Alwar - 301001,Rajasthan Change
3. REVIEW ORDER
Redmi Note 4 (64GB, 4GB RAM)-Black Change
4. MAKE PAYMENT
Pay using Debit Card
Pay using Net Banking
SUMMARY(1 Item)
Redmi Note 4 (64GB, 4GB RAM)
Quantity: 1
13,999
Total:
13,999
Delivery Charges:
Free
You Pay:
13,999


Full name: Brain Ketunze.
To keep it simple, call me Kekule.
- Originally From Cameroon
- 16-08-1981
- Since October 2009, living in Belgium
- I can speak:
- English
- French
- Basic Dutch
Why would I like to become a web developer?:
Programming is a lot of fun, here are the reasons:
- Finding solution
- Creating interesting web apps
- Designing beautiful websites
- Building mobile and desktop applications
- Diving deep in machine learning
What I learned so far:
-
Web Development at Hack Your Future Belgium
- JavaScript
- HTML & CSS
- Git & GitHub
- Development Strategy
- Communication skills
- Team work & collaboration
- Writing understandable and clean code
- Learning from other's code
Find me
Contacts
Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:
+32 485 33 99 36(fake)
Address:
Web dev street 10, Leuven Belgium
© Brain ketunze | 2021


QPI Calculator Mini v1
POWERED BY CompSAt
Your QPI
-
Letter Mark
# of Units
-
A
B+
B
C+
C
D
F
1
2
3
5
6
x
+
Advanced
Lorem ipsum...


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE COURT OF MS. KADAMBARI AWASTHI : CIVIL JUDGE-02, CENTRAL: ROOM NO. 231: TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI Suit No. 118/10 In the matter of :- 1. Smt. Kanta W/o Sh. Ram Niwas, 2. Sh. Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Kapoor Chand, (Both resident of House No. L-224, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52). .................Plaintiffs Versus 1. Smt. Meena Sharma, W/o Sh. Dinesh Sharma, 2. Sh. Dinesh Sharma, S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, (Both R/o H.No. L-229, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052). 3. M/s Reliance Infocom Ltd. Hotel Ranjit, Room No. 102, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi-110002. 4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. 5. Delhi Pollution Control Committee, through its Chairman, 4th Floor, I.S.B.T Building, Delhi. ..................Defendants Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 1/22 Date of Institution : 11.12.2003 Reserve for judgment on : 16.01.2014 Date of Judgment : 31.01.2014 SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION JUDGMENT
By this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit filed for permanent and mandatory injunction.
1. It is stated that plaintiffs are resident of house no. L-224, Shastri Nagar, Delhi and are residing with their family members in the aforesaid premises. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 & 2 are wife and husband and they have purchased the property bearing no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. It is further submitted that defendant no. 1 and 2 are running illegal factory of manufacturing the motors of heavy generator sets etc. in the premises bearing no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi without obtaining the licence from the concerned authority i.e. defendant no. 4.
2. It is further submitted that at the time of purchasing the property by the defendant no. 1 and 2, property bearing no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi was consisted of only ground floor and even the construction of the ground floor was in a very dilapidated condition. It is also stated that after purchasing the property in question, the defendant no. 1 and 2 raised illegal and unauthorized construction in the said property without any sanctioned site plan from the concerned authority and in gross violation of building bye-laws. It is further Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 2/22 submitted that defendant no. 1 and 2 raised a wall from the Chajja from 1st floor of the property in question to 5th floor and have not left any open space in the building as per municipal bye-laws.
3. it is also stated that plaintiff has already filed a suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants in a competent court of law and another suit has been filed by mother of plaintiff no.2 for recovery of Rs.4,95,000/- as damages, compensation alongwith permanent injunction defendant no.1 and 2 in another court of law. It is also submitted that defendant no. 1 and 2 also filed a suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff no.1 and 2. It is further stated that defendant no. 4 has filed filed the written statement in the suit filed by plaintiff against defendant which is listed before the court of Sh. Amit Bansal, then Civil Judge, Delhi. The MCD therein submitted that the unauthorized construction raised by defendant no. 1 and 2 in respect of ground floor and 1st floor has been booked vide file no. 156/B/UC/CLZ/96 dated 01.11.1996 and the unauthorised construction of a hall and staircase at second floor and third floor has been booked alongwith other property.
4. It is stated that inspite of these booking of unauthorised construction, defendant no. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendant no.3 raised unauthorised and illegal construction further of a room on the roof of 5th floor. It is also submitted that defendant no. 1 and 2 also raised unauthorised construction of pillars for constructing cellular tower and letting out the same to defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 3 is fixing cellular towers on the roof of 5th floor of property bearing no. L-225, Shastri Nagar Delhi, without taking any permission from defendant no. 4 and 5. It is also stated that defendant no. 3 also fix a Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 3/22 generator which is very heavy load for the said installation. It is also submitted that plaintiff and other persons of locality several times requested the defendant no. 1 and 2 not to raise any illegal construction of pillars for the purposes of fixing cellular tower but defendant no. 1 to 3 did not pay any heed to the request of plaintiff and other neighborers and work is still in progress.
5. It is submitted that plaintiff no.2 has filed a complaint to Commissioner MCD on 28.10.2003 bu the defendant no. 4 did not take any action on the said complaint. The defendant no. 1 to 3 are adamant to raise/set up the cellular tower on property bearing no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. Plaintiff was compelled to make further complaint to commissioner MCD, Delhi and other higher authorities but inspite of the complaints, not action has been taken against defendant no. 1 to 3 by defendant no. 4 and 5.
6. It is stated that the cellular tower will effect the health of plaintiff and other neighborers. The cellular tower can fell at any time and the same can cause harm to plaintiff and other members of locality. It is stated that cellular tower has not been completed till date. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 and 2 have malafide intentions and they have handed over the possession of 5th floor to defendant no.3 for fixing cellular tower, so that defendant no. 4 could not demolish the unauthorised construction raised by defendant no. 1 and 2 in property bearing no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi which which was booked for demolition by defendant no.4.
7. It is submitted that defendant no. 1 and 2 are influential people Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 4/22 and claim to have good contacts with the officials of defendant no. 4 and 5. It is further submitted that present suit has been filed against defendant no. 4 and 5 who are necessary parties without serving the notice under Section 478 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and relief claimed is of urgent in nature.
8. it is further submitted that cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants on 26.10.2003 when defendant no. 1 and 2 collected the building material and started raising unauthorised and illegal construction of pillars for fixing the cellular tower. It is further submitted that the plaintiff and other locality members requested the defendant no. 1 to 3 not to raise any illegal construction and not to fix the cellular tower but the defendants did not pay any heed to the request of plaintiff and other locality members. It is further stated that cause of action again arose on 28.10.2003 when plaintiff made complaint to defendant no.4 and on 18.11.2003 when plaintiff was compelled to make another complaint to defendant no.4 as well as to higher authorities. As the work of cellular tower is still in progress, cause of action as well in subsistence.
9. A prayer is made before the court to pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 to 3 thereby restraining defendant no. 1 to 3, their agents, servants, attornies etc. from raising any illegal and unauthorised construction for fixing cellular tower and generator on the property in question.
10. it is also asked for passing a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no. 4 and 5 thereby directing defendant no. 4 to demolish or remove the cellular tower fixed by Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 5/22 defendant no. 1 to 3 from premises No. L-225, shastri Nagar, Delhi alongwith cost of the suit.
11. Joint written statement on behalf of defendant no. 1 and 2 has been filed taking preliminary objection that the present suit for injunction filed by plaintiffs is also barred under Section 10 CPC as already filed number of suits for injunction, claiming almost the same relief before the other courts of law. It is stated that plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court of pendency of previous litigation in between the parties pertaining to the same subject matter and on account of which concealment of facts and further the plaintiffs have falsely stated that they are residing at property no. L-224, Shastir Nagar, Delhi ; whereas the matter of fact is that they are running a business of manufacturing of steel almirah and other furniture and using the same for commercial purposes without obtaining licence as required under Section 416 and 417 of DMC Act read with Schedule 11. It is further stated that manufacturing of steel almirahs and other furniture is being carried out by using electric power and gas which has not only cause nuisance in the area but also caused damage to the adjacent property no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi owned by defendant no. 1 and 2.
12. It is stated that plaintiffs have also been prosecuted for running the said unlawful, illegal, unauthorised factory in the residential premises. The plaintiffs are thus concealing the material facts from the court.
13. It is further stated that plaintiff has filed the present suit to harass the defendants knowing fully that they have no cause of action Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 6/22 because the installation of antenna at the top roof of the property would not cause any inconvenience to the plaintiffs. Even otherwise the antenna has already been installed before the institution of the suit. It is further stated that prior to filing of the suit, one Sh. Jageshwar Parshad was in occupation of property no. L-226, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, who had filed similar suit at the instance of plaintiffs, vide suit no. 367/03 and the court declined to given any interim relief in the said suit to the plaintiff. It is stated that the similar suit was also declined by two other courts as stated in para 4 of WS. Now, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with same relief. It is further stated that there are number of litigations pending between the parties and all such litigations are clubbed together and are pending in the court of Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. It is stated that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and is liable to be rejected. It is also stated that the present suit has been filed in the representative capacity of the plaintiff and the same can not be entertained by the court in compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC.
14. In para wise reply, it is submitted that it is wrong and denied that property no. L-224, Shastri, Nagar, Delhi is being used for commercial purposes by the defendant and the factory of manufacturing of steel almirah is being run by the plaintiff with the use of power supply and gas. It is also evident from advertisement given in the newspaper. The said factory is being run without any legal license by competent authority. It is stated that plaintiffs are not guilty of concealment of material facts but also misusing the property and violating the law. It is stated to be wrong and denied that defendants are running a factory of manufacturing of motor of heavy generator set etc. in the premises no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, without obtaining the licence from the concerned Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 7/22 authority. It is also stated in this regard that defendants have got more than one licence for running the factory at another premises No. L-229 and no business is being carried out in premises no. L-229, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. It is also stated that it is wrong and incorrect to state that at the time of purchasing the property no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, it was only a single storey house and was in existence in the same condition as it exists today except the answering defendants have renovated the same to make it habitable, for which no permission was required from MCD. It is also incorrect that no illegal and unauthorised construction have been raised by the defendants in the property. It is stated that due to malafide intention, plaintiff has filed various litigations seeking demolition of said property but after the order of the Hon'ble High Court, MCD has not taken any action contrary to the law and apart from that defendant no. 1 and 2 have already applied for regularisation of unauthorized structure, if any, with defendant no.3.
15. Content of para 5 and 6 are not denied and are stated to be matter of record. However, it is submitted that the admission of the plaintiff itself shows that he has hardened litigants and in continuation of their unlawful and unauthorised action of malacious prosecution, has filed several litigations against defendant no. 1 and 2.
16. It is stated to be wrong and incorrect that defendant no.1 and 2 in collusion with MCD raised any unauthorised construction of room on 5th floor of property. It is further stated that the plea of defendant is vague as there is no mention in the property. However, a cellular tower has already been installed for which an agreement was arrived and such installation cannot be stopped at the instance of the plaintiff who has no locus standi. It is further stated that suit of the Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 8/22 plaintiff is without any cause of action.
17. It is stated that the alleged complaint made to the Commissioner, MCD was malafide and similarly subsequent complaints to the MCD or local police station, SDM etc. was not adhere to as the defendant has not violated any law.
18. It is incorrect to state that the cellular tower installed in the property would effect the health of the plaintiff or other neighbourers. It is further wrong and denied that the installation of cellular has not been completed. It is also submitted that content of para 10 and 11 are wrong and denied since no unauthorised construction, as falsely alleged, in property no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
19. All the allegations and averments made against defendant no. 1 and 2 are denied in toto and it is submitted that the plaintiff has misjoinder of parties as defendant no. 4 and 5 are not necessary parties and there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against any of the defendant. It is also submitted that court has no jurisdiction to try the matter and the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.
20. A prayer is made to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with cost since he is not entitled for the same.
Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 9/22
21. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of defendant no. 4.
22. Preliminary objections has been taken by the MCD stating that the suit is barred u/s. 477/478 of the DMC Act for the want of notice upon the defendant. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action against defendant MCD, since the MCD has already initiated action with respect to unauthorized construction carried out at the suit property.
23 It is submitted that the MCD booked the property no. L 225, Shastri Nagar Delhi vide file no. 156 /B /UC/CLZ /99 dated 01.09.99 and file number 122/B/UC/CLZ/99 dated 16.07.99 and further file no. 180/B/UC/CLZ/2003 dated 24.11.2003 in respect of the property in dispute and u/s. 343/344 of the DMC Act.
24. It is submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff is defective and suffer with many legal as well as technical defects. It is also stated that a similar suit is pending in another court of law.
25. In reply on mertis, it is submitted that the billing department of MCD has already initialted action u/s 343/344 of DMC Act. Hence, the avements of the plaintiff in this respect are not correct whereas the contents of para 5 and 6 are admitted by the defendant.
26. It is further submtited that in reply to para 7, it is submitted that the defendant MCD has not given any persmission to erccet, a cellular Tower at the suit premises. It is also stated that the defendant MCD has intitated action against celllular tower also.
Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 10/22
27. All the avements and allegations are denied in toto by the MCD and it is prayed befoer the court that suit of plaintiff against MCD be dismissed with cost.
28. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of defendant no. 5 Delhi pollution Control Committee.
29. The defendant no. 5 has taken preliminary objection that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not mainable as much as u/s. 43 of the Air ( prevention and control of Pollution ) Act 1981, and it is also stated that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under the said provision.
30. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintiable u/s. 41 (h) specific Relief Act. It is further submitted that suit is not maintable as the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of section 26 sub clause 4 CPC.
31. It is also stated that plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant no. 5 and no relief has been claimed against defendant no.
5. It is stated that suit of plaintiff is liable to be rejected u/o. 7 Rule 11 for the said reason.
32. Preliminary objection is also taken to the effect that the provisions of section 80 of CPC has not complied with by plaintiff.
33. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the contents of para 1 and 2 of the suit are denied by the defendant for the want of knowledge whereas the contents of para 3 and 5 are admitted. It is further submitted that after receiving the copy of the plaint, the officials of Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 11/22 defendant no. 5 inspected the suit premiss on 15.01.2004 and found that M/s Reliance Inforcom has installed mobile anteena at the top floor with the generator set of 30 KVA with acoustic enclosure with intention to provide cellular services, but the same was yet to be commissioned. It is fruther found that M/s. Reliance Inforcom had not taken any mandatory consent under the Air ( prevention and control of Pollution ) Act from defendant No. 5 and has planned to operate cellular service in residential area. A show cause notice u/s. 31 (A) of the Air ( prevention and control of Pollution ) Act was issued to M/s Reliance Inforcom on 20.02.2004. that is why the operation of DG Set may not been enclosed with immediate effect. It is also stated that the notice has returned unserved .
34. It is also stated that contents of para 8 and 9 are wrong and denied. It is further stated that defendant no. 5 has failed to take any action as per law, since they has initiated proceedings u/s. 31 (A) of the Air Act.
35. It is further denied that the defendant no. 5 has been approached by defendant no. 1 and 2 for any sort of influence. The contents of para 12 and 13 are also denied.
36. A prayer has been made before the court to dismised the suit of the plaintiff qua the defendant no. 5.
37. The replication to the written statemtn filed on behalf of defenant no. 1 and 2 , defenant no. 4 and defendant no. 5 has been filed by the plaintiff whereby the averments of the WS has been denied in toto and the content of plaint has been reaffirmed and reiterated by the plaintiff.
Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 12/22
38. Vide order dated 15.12.2004 issued were framed by my Ld. Predecessor .
1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injuction for removal of the cellular tower affixed by the defendants no. 1-3 as prayed for ? OPP 2 Whether the suit is barred under section 10 of CPC ? OPD 3 Whether the plaintiff has not approached to this court with clean hands? OIPD 4 Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 5 Whether the suit is hit by order 1 Rule 8 CPC and as such not maintainable ? OPD 6 Whether the suit is barred u/s. 477/478 of the DMC Act?
OPD 7 Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of section 43 of the Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act, 1981? OPD 8 Whether the suit is bad for non compliance of provisions of section 26 (2) and section 80 of the CPC ? OPD 9 Whether the suit is not maintainable u/s. 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD 10 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief , if so, what relief?
39 In support of its case plaintiff has examined PW 1 Sh. Ramesh Chand whereas the defendant no. 1 and 2 examined Sh. Dinesh Sharma as DW 1 and defendant no. 4 has also examined as DW 2 Sh. G S Yadav, Assistant Engineer Building, MCD.
40 PW 1 has tendered his affidavit in evidence along with the document Ex. PW 1/A. On cross examination by Ld counsel for defendant no. 4, PW 1 has deposed that he personally has given the notice to MCD before initiating the suit in 10th or 11th month of the year 2003. he admitted that mark A is the copy of the complaint and not the notice. He showed his ignorance about the appeal preferred by the occupants of the suit premises in the appellant tribunal of MCD. He Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 13/22 denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for defendant MCD that no notice was given to MCD and he has filed the present suit in order to harass the MCD.
41 On cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 5, PW 1 admitted that he made a complaint before DPCC but he showed his ignorance about the visit of officials of DPCC to the premises to check whethere there was pollution or not, after his complaint and whether DPCC gave any notice u/s. 31 A to defendant no. 3. He denied the suggestion that DPCC is in collusion with defendant no. 1 and 3.
42 On cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2, PW 1 deposed that he along with Kanta has filed three cases against defendant no. 1 and 2. He admitted that in other suits he has alleged that defenant no. 1 has raised unauthorized constructions in L-225. He further admitted that in the suit pending in the court of Sh. A S Yadav, he sought compensation of Rs. 4 lacs for causing damages to his property by defendant no. 1. it is stated during the course of cross examination that the PW 1 has not mentioned in his plaint about the dismissal of the suit because at the time when the present suit was instituted no such order was passed by the court. It is denied by the witness that the corporation did not pay any heed to his complaint in this fact of unauthorized construction at there was no unauthroized construction raised by defendant no. 1. PW 1 express his unawarness to the fact that the MCD has not taken any action in pursuant to some order of the Hon'ble High court. He claimed that suit has been filed because an anteena has been put on the roof of the defendant no. 1 's property . He denied the suggestion that on his behest , his neighbour has filed a suit for compenstion on the same grounds against defendant no. 1. he also express his unwarness as to the proceedings in the said Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 14/22 suit. He admitted that the house number of the said neighbourer namely sh Joginder is 226 and his house number is 224 and the house no of defendant no. 1 and 2 is 225. He denied the suggestion that since no injunction was granted in the case filed by Joginder , plaintiff filed the present suit to obtain the same. He denied that the anteena was installed before the filing of the suit by him. He also admitted that the tower is to be demolised vide file 180/B/UC/CLZ/2003.
43 He also denied that the MCD made policy in 2002 regarding installation of cellular towers in the buildings. He also admitted that a tower was installed at the roof of Sh Dinesh. He admitted that the house no. 229 belongs to defendant no. 1 and 2. He denied the suggest that no factory is running on the said premises.
44 The witness was further recalled for creoss esamination by Ld. Defendant no. 1 and 2. the witness has denied the suggestion that he had no knowlege about the factory of Sh Dinesh Shama at Maya Puri. He admitted that his mother filed the suit against defendant no. 1 and 2 regarding the damages caused by the illegal factory run by defendant no. 1 and 2 and the said suit was dismissed by the court of law. However, it is stated that an appeal is pending in respect of the that order. He also admitted that the suit is pertains to the illegal cellular tower and generator. It is stated that the MCD, defendant no. 4 had not granted any permission for installation of cellular tower and generator . He also admitted that his neighbours have not lodged any complaint regarding installation of cellurrarl tower and generator with MCD. He also claimed to have made a complaint in the month of October- November 2003 regarding the nsallation tower when the work of installation was in process. He also submitted that it took about 1 ½ Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 15/22 month to install the tower after making his complaints.
45 DW 1 Sh Dinesh Sharma was examined and during the course of his cross examination, he stated tha property bearing no. L-225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi comprised Ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. It is also admitted that there is only room constriucted on the roof of property bearing no. L- 225, Shastri Nagar , Delhi . It is stated that tower of cellular is on the roof of the room situated on the third floor of the property mentioned above. DW 1 claimed that no construction was made by him for fixing the tower. He claimed to have not seen whether the cellular tower was fixed on the pillar constructed on the roof of the room of third floor. However, it has been admitted that he has visited the property in question about a week ago. He denied the suggestion that the pillars of the roof of the room on the thrid floor was constructed by him and further that the has seen the pillars and purposely deposing falsely. DW 1 later on admitted that the cellular tower was fixed on his property in the month of January, 2005. however, he cannot confirm the exact date. He admitted that he along with his wife are the joint owners of the property bearing no. L- 225 Shastri Nagar. He also admitted that the property was constructed on the land measuring 200 sq yards. He claimed that at the time of purchase of the property in question all the floors were in existence. He denied that no site plan was attached along with the sale deed by which he purchase the property in question by the earlier vendor. It is stated that on the ground floor of this property only a room and a toilet is constructed. On the first floor of the prorpety two rooms are there along with the toilet and on the second and third floor similar accommodation is in existence. It is claimed that there is no lift in the property in question. He denied the suggestion that no lift is installed in Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 16/22 the property in question. The witness in his testimony admitted to have engaged in the business of alternator from property no. L- 225 , Shastri Nagar which is the property admeasuring 100 sq yards.
46 The witness was further recalled for further cross examination on 23.09.2011 where he deposed on oath that he has not brought the sale deed of property no. L 225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi nor the photocopy of the same has been placed. He denied the suggestion that he purposely avoiding to place the same on record since, the site plan is enclosed with the sale deed. He claimed that no site plan in the area of Shastri Nagar is required. He admitted that the shastri nagar area falls under the jurisdiction of MCD . He has further admitted that he has not taken any building stability certificate prior to the fixing of cellular tower from the concerned authority. He claimed that the cellular tower was installed by defendant no. 3. He also admitted to have not taken any NOC from residence welfare association, nor have taken any clearance from the pollution board and MCD. He improved upon his earlier testimony and stated that MCD permission was obtained by defendant no. 3 but he express his enability to produce the said permission so taken.
47 He admitted that the cellular tower is installed at the top of the building at the site which is mark A 1 as shown in Ex. DW 1/X . HE also admitted that suit for the damanges filed by him against the present defendantn has been dismissed . The witness cannot confirm the date of installation of the cellular tower and its completion. He denied that any commercial activity is going on in L- 225 Shasti Nagar , Delhi. He also denied that there is any unauthorized constrution in L 3225. He admits that MCD has already demollised unauthorized construction Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 17/22 over his property. The witness cannot confirm wehther the MCD has sealed the cellular tower or he has broken the seal and consequently any case was registered against him. He also denied that due to the rays emitted by the cellular tower , the father of the plaintiff no. 2 wa s effected and fallen ill . The cellular tower is liable to be removed.
48 DW 2 Sh G S Yadav, Asst. Engineer Building, was examined by the counsel for the plaintiff. He deposed that permission of MCD is required for the installation of cellular tower. He also admitted that defendant no. 1 to 3 has not taken any permission to install the cellular tower. He proves the complaint dt. 28.10.2003 as per the record where by it is revealed that unauthorized construction in the shape of erection of cellular tower and steel structure was booked by the department for unauthorized construction. He also deposed that due to the shortage of time or diversion of force to other premises, no action could be taken. He admitted that action was taken on 12.06.2002, 11.09.2002 and 10.12.2009. As per record the action taken on 10.12.2009 where by the roof of 4th floor and wall were demolished. As per the record the cellular tower was still in existence and that has not been removed by the MCD.
My issuewise finding is as under :
For the sake of convenience, issue no. 6, 7 and 8 would be decided first.
6. Whether the suit is barred U/s 447/476 of DMC Act? OPD
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the view of section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 ? OPD
8. Whether the suit is bad for non compliance of provisions of section 26 (2) and section 80 of CPC? OPD
49. Needless to say that the onus to prove the above said issues were cast on the defendant, however, material available on record Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 18/22 reflects that the MCD was aware of the illegal constructions raised at the suit premises by the defendant, and even the same was booked by the MCD for demolition. More over the present suit filed by the plaintiff is in respect of the permanent and mandatory injunction.
"Clause 3 of Section 447 of DMC Act clearly provides that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to apply to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit."
50 Moreover the plaintiff has complained several time to the MCD concerned of taking appropriate action against the defendants for raising unauthorized construction at the suit premises which were in the clear contravention to the norms of building by laws and policy.
51 As far as the objection raised in respect of section 46 AIR act is concerned, the defendant no. 5 has not given any suggestion to the witness in respect of the notice under section 80 of the CPC. More over the present suit was filed along an application U/s 80 sub clause 2 seeking exemption from giving the statutory notice to the above said authorities stating that the matter is of urgent nature and if the plaintiff waits for the expiry of the notice period the suit of the plaintiff would become infructuous. The court has allowed the application which is a matter of record.
For the reasons above stated, issue no. 6 , 7 and 8 are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 2, 3 and 4 :
2. Whether the suit is barred under section 10 of the CPC?
OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached to this court with clean hands ? OPD
4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 19/22 52 During the cross examination, the plaintiff / PW-1 and the defendant both had admitted to the fact that there are multiple litigation pending between the parties. However, the material available on record reflects that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the present defendant was of different nature than the present one. Since one suit pertains to recovery / damages filed by the mother of the plaintiff no. 2 and the other suit filed by the plaintiff that relates to the unauthorised construction raised on the first and second floor of the suit property.
The cause of action reflected in all the suit are different and similarly no bar is in existance as stipulated under section 10 of CPC.
53 It is claimed by the defendant that plaintiff has not approached the court with the clean hands, as he himself engaged in the commercial activites from his residence without taking any necessary license from the competent authority.
54 It is deposed on oath by the plaintiff that he is not engaged any commercial activities from his residence. No independent witness in support of his claim has been bring forth by the defendant. Neither any cogent documentary evidence to support and prove the same was brought on record. In absence of this, the averment made by the defendant are nothing more than the bald assertion.
55 The issue no. 4 was framed in respect of the the proper valuation, court fee and jurisdiction of the Court. No suggestion in respect of the above said objection raised by the defendant was given to the plaintiff. The valuation and the court fee was not challanged during the entire testimony, however, the objections taken on the point of jurisdiction already settled by deliberations in previous issues. For the reasons Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 20/22 above stated issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 5 and 9 :
5. Whether the suit is hit by order 1 rule 8 CPC and as such not maintainable? OPD
9. Whether the suit is not maintainable under section 41
(h) of the Specific Relief Act ? OPD
56. Issue no. 5 was framed to the effect that the suit is hit by order 1 rule 8 CPC and as such the suit itself is not maintainable. The onus to prove these issues was cast on the defendant. Not a single suggestion in respect of the above said objections was put to PW-1 during his entire cross examination, what to say of a direct question. It is established principle of law that he who assert, must prove the same. The defendant meserably failed to prove the above said issues and since no evidence was led on these aspects. For the reasons above stated issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 1 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction for removal of the cellular tower fixed by the defendants no. 1-3 as prayed for ? OPP
57. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of mandatory injunction for the removal of cellular tower affixed by the defendant no. 1 to 3. From the deliberations in the previous issues it is established that plaintiff has raised unauthorised construction which was even booked by MCD for demolishing the same. The testimony of DW-2 Shri G.S. Yadav, Asstt. Engineer Building clearly reflects that no commission was taken by the MCD for installation of the cellular tower by the MCD. It is also deposed that as per the official record authorized Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 21/22 construction in the shape of errection of cellular tower, steel structure was booked by the department for unauthorized construction dated 24.11.2003 vide file no. 180/B/UC/ CLZ/2003. It is also stated on oath that either due to shortage of time or diversion of forces to the other premises the action against the abovesaid illegal construction could not be taken. He further depose that as per the official record, the demolition action was taken on 10.12.2009 whereby roof at the 4th floor was demolished but the cellular tower is still in existence and that has not been removed by the MCD.
58. Nothing more is required on the part of the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to the relief sought, permanent and mandatory injunction. For the reasons above stated issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief :
59. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants. Since it is established that the plaintiff has been successful in proving his case against the defendants. Consequnetly, he is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against defendant no. 1 to 3 whereby restraining their agents, servant attornies etc from raising any illegal and unauthorized construction for fixing cellular tower and generators on the suit property i.e. 225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
60. The plaintiff is also entitled for decree of mandatory injunction whereby defendant no. 4 and 5 are directed to demolish and remove the cellular tower fixed by defendant no. 1 to 3 from the suit property as mentioned above as reflected in site plan PW1/1.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 22/22 File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in Open Court (KADAMBARI AWASTHI) today i.e. 31st January 2014 Civil Judge-02/Central Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 23/22 16.01.2014 Present : None.
No order can be passed as regular stenographer is on leave.
Come up for orders on 31.01.2014.
(KADAMBARI AWASTHI ) Civil Judge-02/Central/Delhi 16.01.2014 Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 24/22 31.01.2014 Present : None.
Vide separate judgement announced in the open court today, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendants. Since it is established that the plaintiff has been successful in proving his case against the defendants. Consequnetly, he is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against defendant no. 1 to 3 whereby restraining their agents, servant attornies etc from raising any illegal and unauthorized construction for fixing cellular tower and generators on the suit property i.e. 225, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
The plaintiff is also entitled for decree of mandatory injunction whereby defendant no. 4 and 5 are directed to demolish and remove the cellular tower fixed by defendant no. 1 to 3 from the suit property as mentioned above as reflected in site plan PW1/1.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(KADAMBARI AWASTHI ) Civil Judge-02/Central/Delhi 31.01.2014 Suit No. 118/10 Kanta Vs Meena Sharma 25/22


{% set serviceName %} Find an energy certificate {% endset%} {% extends "layout.html" %} {% block pageTitle %} Find an energy performance certificate (EPC) - Find an energy certificate - GOV.UK {% endblock %} {% block content %}
If your property does not have a valid EPC, you can get a new energy certificate.


dpkg-mergechangelogs(1) dpkg suite dpkg-mergechangelogs(1) NAME dpkg-mergechangelogs - 3-way merge of debian/changelog files SYNOPSIS dpkg-mergechangelogs [option...] old new-a new-b [out] DESCRIPTION This program will use the 3 provided versions of the Debian changelog to generate a merged changelog file. The resulting changelog is stored in the file out or output to the standard output if that parameter is not given. Each entry is identified by its version number and they are assumed to be not conflicting, they are simply merged in the right order (by decreasing version number). When --merge-prereleases is used, the part of the ver‐ sion number after the last tilde is dropped so that 1.0-1~exp1 and 1.0-1~exp5 are considered to be the same entry. When the same version is available in both new-a and new-b, a standard line-based 3-way merge is attempted (provided that the module Algorithm::Merge is available — it's part of the package libalgorithm-merge-perl — otherwise you get a global conflict on the content of the entry). OPTIONS --merge-prereleases, -m Drop the part after the last tilde in the version number when doing version comparison to identify if two entries are supposed to be the same or not. This is useful when you keep using the same changelog entry but you increase its version number regularly. For instance, you might have 2.3-1~exp1, 2.3-1~exp2, ... until the official release 2.3-1 and they are all the same changelog entry that has evolved over time. --help Show the usage message and exit. --version Show the version and exit. LIMITATIONS Anything that is not parsed by Dpkg::Changelog is lost during the merge. This might include stuff like vim modelines, comments which were not sup‐ posed to be there, etc. INTEGRATION WITH GIT If you want to use this program to merge Debian changelog files in a git repository, you have first to register a new merge driver in .git/config or ~/.gitconfig: [merge "dpkg-mergechangelogs"] name = debian/changelog merge driver driver = dpkg-mergechangelogs -m %O %A %B %A Then you have to setup the merge attribute for the debian/changelog file either in .gitattributes in the repository itself, or in .git/info/attributes: debian/changelog merge=dpkg-mergechangelogs Debian Project 2011-08-14 dpkg-mergechangelogs(1)


We are glad to help you . please check the official blog site or please free to call 1800-IPOLL-INDIA.
Or
you can I-poll if you are registered to the website. For registration click here.
Already registered proceed to Login


|
|
Do not reply to this email.
You have been invited to participate in a post-editing project on the ACCEPT Portal: %ProjectName%
In order to accept the invitation, please click on the link below. If you do not have an ACCEPT Portal account, this link will bring you to the registration page.
Please note that during the project, your post-editing activity will be recorded for research purposes. When you have completed this post-editing project, your post-editing activity data may be made available to you upon request.
%MESSAGENOTE%
%MESSAGE%
%Link%
The ACCEPT Research Project Team thank you for your participation.
Do not forward this email. The verify link is private.
|
|
| |
This message was sent from a notification-only email address that does not accept incoming email. Please do not reply to this message. |
|