Latest news with #RulesandRegulations
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Attorney discusses wrongful death lawsuit that lists restaurants believed to have served driver in DUI crash
DECATUR, Ala. (WHNT) — The family of Chloe Hastings, a 17-year-old girl who was tragically killed in a fiery car crash in Decatur, is taking legal action. On Tuesday, the family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Kevin Penich, the man charged with DUI and murder in the crash, and the establishments that they believe served him alcohol that night. Wrongful death lawsuit filed against man charged with murder in Beltline Road crash, Decatur businesses According to Decatur Police, the crash happened on May 17 at the intersection of Beltline Road and Westmead Street. News 19 spoke with the attorney representing the Hastings family in the lawsuit. Attorney Hunter Garnett said the goal is to ensure no other family has to go through what the Hastings family has gone through. 'The goal in this case is to make sure that there's not another Chloe Hastings,' Garnett said. 'That there are no more teenagers killed, due to the reckless conduct of drunk drivers, due to being overserved at a bar.' 'We believe that the evidence will show that Kevin Penich was intoxicated when he went into these establishments or became intoxicated as a result of being served alcohol,' Garnett said. Wrongful death lawsuit filed against man charged with murder in Beltline Road crash, Decatur businesses The lawsuit claims Penich was served alcohol at three Decatur restaurants located off of Beltline Road: Buffalo Wild Wings, Logan's Roadhouse, and Alfonso's Pizza. 'Our goal is to hold anybody that contributed to the harm responsible,' Garnett told News 19. 'These are large establishments that should know better than to serve somebody to the point of being this level of intoxicated.' The lawsuit cites the Alabama Dram Shop Act: 'The wife, child, parent, or other person who shall be injured in person, property or means of support by any intoxicated person or in consequence of the intoxication of any person shall have a right of action against any person, who shall, by selling, giving, or otherwise disposing of to another, contrary to the provisions of law, any liquors or beverages, cause the intoxication of such person for all damages actually sustained as well as exemplary damages.' It essentially claims that a person who is injured by someone who is intoxicated has the right to take action against the person who caused the person to be intoxicated. The lawsuit also cites a section of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Rules and Regulations that reads, 'no licensee or employee of a licensee shall serve or dispense alcoholic beverages to any person visibly intoxicated.' Garnett told News 19 that it is the responsibility of a person serving alcohol to do so responsibly. 'If you're a bartender, if you're a waitress, if you're anybody that serves alcohol, I want to stress that it's your job to make sure that when you have a patron that you don't overserve them,' Garnett said. He said that the family is seeking punitive damages in the lawsuit. He also explained that the wrongful death lawsuit will likely take a back seat while the criminal case against Kevin Penich moves through the court system. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
FSSAI bans use of '100%' on food labels, says term misleads consumers
The Authority emphasised that such terminology is not only undefined under current regulations but also misleading and likely to create a false impression among consumers Press Trust of India New Delhi The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued a strong advisory against the use of the term "100%" in food labelling, citing concerns over its potential to mislead consumers. The apex food regulator, in a statement, said it has asked all Food Business Operators (FBOs) to refrain from using the term on food labels, packaging, and promotional content, owing to its ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation within the existing regulatory provisions. In the advisory issued on Thursday, FSSAI highlighted a noticeable surge in the use of the term "100%" across food product labels and promotional platforms. The Authority emphasised that such terminology is not only undefined under current regulations but also misleading and likely to create a false impression among consumers. As per the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, the term "100%" is not defined or referenced in any manner under the FSS Act, 2006, or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. Furthermore, the Sub-regulation 10(7) of the aforementioned regulations strictly prohibits any advertisement or claim that undermines other manufacturers or influences consumer perception in a misleading manner. As per Sub-regulation 4(1), it shall be ensured that the claims must be truthful, unambiguous, meaningful, not misleading and help consumers to comprehend the information provided. The use of the term "100%"whether in isolation or combined with other descriptorsis likely to create a false impression of absolute purity or superiority, FSSAI said and added this could mislead consumers into believing that other comparable products in the market are inferior or non-compliant with regulatory standards. In view of these concerns, all FBOs have been advised to not use the term "100%" on food product labels, packaging, and any form of promotional content. FSSAI said it remains committed to ensuring transparency and fairness in food labelling to protect consumer interests and promote informed choices. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
India Gazette
30-05-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
FSSAI issued strong advisory for Food Business companies not to use '100%' in food labelling
New Delhi [India], May 30 (ANI): The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on Friday issued a strong advisory to not use the term '100%' in food labelling as the authority believes that it is misleading to consumers.'The apex food regulator has asked all Food Business Operators (FBOs) to refrain from using the term on food labels, packaging, and promotional content, owing to its ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation within the existing regulatory provisions,' FSSAI said in a also issued an advisory on Thursday, highlighting the 'noticeable surge in the usage of the term '100% across food product labels and promotional platforms.'According to the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, the term '100%' is not defined or referenced in any manner under the FSS Act, 2006, or the Rules and Regulations made 10(7) of the aforementioned regulations strictly prohibits any advertisement or claim that undermines other manufacturers or influences consumer perception in a misleading the statement also says that, 'as per Sub-regulation 4(1) it shall be ensured that the Claims must be truthful, unambiguous, meaningful, not misleading and help consumers to comprehend the information provided.'Therefore, FSSAI says the use of the term '100%', irrespective of its usage in isolation or combined with other descriptors, is likely to create a false impression of absolute purity or superiority and may create an impression and the authority believes that this could mislead consumers into believing that other comparable products in the market are inferior or non-compliant with regulatory light of the above-mentioned concern, FSSAI advises Food Business Operators not to use the term '100%' on food product labels, packaging, or in any form of promotional content. (ANI)
The Hindu
05-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Allahabad High Court disposes of petition seeking CBI probe into Rahul Gandhi's citizenship
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday (May 5, 2025) disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the citizenship of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. A Bench of Justices A.R. Masoodi and Rajiv Singh allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek relief. A detailed order on the issue was not available till the time of the filing of this report. In previous hearings, Deputy Solicitor General S.B. Pandey had submitted in court that, acting on the petitioner's complaint, the concerned Ministry had written to the U.K. government, seeking details on Mr. Gandhi's alleged British citizenship, and hence the government needed more time to take a final decision on the petitioner's representation. Sources in the government said that as the Central government had not been able to provide any time limit on resolving the petitioner's complaint, the court had observed that there was no justification in keeping the petition pending. 'The PIL was disposed of, giving liberty to the Government of India to take a decision on the petitioner's representation on Mr. Gandhi's citizenship. On the issue that the petitioner sought the cancellation of Mr. Gandhi's Lok Sabha membership, the court noted that this relief could not be granted to him as he did not fulfil the criteria to demand it,' a senior official involved in the matter said. The matter pertains to a plea filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, who had petitioned the court to order the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), the Chief Electoral Officer of Uttar Pradesh, and the Returning Officer of Raebareli to cancel Mr. Gandhi's electoral certificate, apart from seeking a CBI probe into his citizenship. Mr. Shishir's social media profile says he is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In his application, he claimed that he had submitted a detailed representation-cum-complaint to the Foreigners Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs, in which he had requested the concerned authorities to cancel Mr. Gandhi's Indian citizenship under the Rules and Regulations of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955; Rule 40(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009; and Schedule III of the 2009 Rules.
The Hindu
02-05-2025
- The Hindu
Vikrant Singh reinstated at IIT Guwahati after court fnds termination unfair and arbitrary
Vikrant Singh, a Ph.D. student who had received a termination letter from IIT Guwahati, was reinstated in the institute after the Gauhati High Court stated that the institute had unjustly handled Mr. Singh's case. Justice Michael Zothankhuma said that Mr. Singh was not given a proper hearing, and the institute didn't share with him the documents of allegations against him; hence, principles of natural justice were ignored. Through a letter issued in June 2021, Vikrant Singh was terminated from the studentship of IIT Guwahati, with immediate effect. This was after the Students' Disciplinary Committee alleged that Mr. Singh had been defaming the institute. While Mr. Singh was called for a disciplinary meeting, he was not made aware of the specific allegation for the proposed hearing or what was to be defended. Mr. Singh wrote a letter, asking for the details and evidence, but instead of a reply, he received his termination letter. Mr. Singh's lawyer argued that he was not given a proper opportunity to hear or defend himself before the termination of his studentship from the IIT, Guwahati. The institute alleged that Mr. Singh had been stirring up controversies and trouble in the IIT, Guwahati, since the time he joined. It said that his actions were highly disruptive to the academic environment, and Mr. Singh has not made any attempt to comply with the Rules and Regulations of the IIT, Guwahati. Justice Michael Zothankhuma asked how someone could defend themselves without knowing the charges? The judge pointed out that the rules of fairness and natural justice were ignored. No proper hearing was given, and no documents were shared. The court set aside the termination. Vikrant would be allowed to complete his Ph.D. He was, however, told to follow the rules, avoid disrupting the academic environment, and submit an undertaking promising he would do so.
