Legal Maintainability

  • Autor de la entrada:
  • Categoría de la entrada:Sin categoría

b) Mid-level maintenance is second-level maintenance performed outside of equipment (on remote parts, components or equipment) in or by designated workshops or service centers, tenders or field service teams. This may include calibration, repair, testing, or replacement of damaged or unusable parts, components, or assemblies. This includes modifications, extensions or upgrades that would only improve the reliability or maintainability of the goods (e.g., increase in mean time between failures) and would not improve the baseline performance or performance of the defence article. Zeleznikow J, Hunter D (1994) Building intelligent legal information systems: representation and reasoning in law (Kluwer computer law series, no. 13). In: Computer law series 13 You can`t not maintain because all the code needs to be updated or removed one day, and that`s why everything we do has more than the initial costs of installation and startup, and why the little we have about web maintainability best practices isn`t enough. Among other guidelines, consideration was given to extending the term of office of members to be appointed from three years to five or seven years, as well as a new term if the committee responsible for recommending names to the designated tribunals deemed it appropriate. With the retirement age of 65, the Supreme Court ruled that such a short three-year term was designed to make these courts a retirement paradise for SC judges who retire at age 62. However, it would take lawyers much longer to develop dispute resolution expertise, and three years in office would be insufficient. Thomasset C, Paquin L-C (1989) Expert Systems in Law and the Representation of Legal Knowledge: Can We Isolate It from the Why and the Who? In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on logica, informatica, diritto: systems of legal experts Susskind RE (1986) Expert systems in law: a jurisprudential approach to artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Mod Law Rev 49(2):168-194. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1986.tb01683.x Dimyadi, J., Bookman, S., Harvey, D. et al.

Maintainable process model-driven online legal expert systems. Artif Intell Law 27, 93-111 (2019). doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9231-3 Bhat J.A.`s decision fills the gaps in Justices Rao and Gupta`s reasoning in developing a workable test. First, he appears to avoid the issue of maintainability by stating that there is nothing to prevent the court from either making a conclusive decision on the issue of maintainability or allowing Transcon on the threshold to withdraw the application and bring a civil action accompanied by an application for interim measures, similar to the previous case in the Bombay High Court. that were raised under the same RBI guidelines. Urgency and/or exceptional circumstances arising from the coronavirus pandemic would not constitute a defence against deferring the issue of maintainability to a later time when the exercise, even if successfully decided in favour of the disputing defendant, loses its relevance. There is certainly a risk of abuse associated with this type of procedure with a written request, as in other petitions in the future there may be an urgent urgency that the pandemic abhors, citing this decision as a precedent to postpone an investigation into the otherwise preliminary issue of maintainability, even if it is a plausible ex facie investigation as in this case. Moreover, the Supreme Court has granted itself unlimited powers to review its decisions – other civil and criminal proceedings – without establishing adequate overriding principles for their exercise, while disregarding predetermined determining determining principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction.

The order appears to have opened Pandora`s box for the Supreme Court to exercise the review power according to its whims and fantasies, without examining liability according to any legal principle. This is very troubling because the Supreme Court has always disregarded the review applications that consider them, often calling them «a serious measure and a reluctant remedy.» In this way, the Court did not carry out an analysis of the question of maintainability, except that it merely took note of the parties` competing allegations and postponed that investigation to a later date. Suppose Transcon takes advantage of the order, settles its payments, but the ordinary chamber of the court concludes that the motion was indeed incompetent – the clock cannot be turned back in time. ICICI would thus suffer irreparable harm, which could have brought legal follow-up action against Transcon after registering its account as an NPA. Following the Court`s decision to grant interim measures in the manner referred to above, an essential public defence to the exercise of jurisdiction has become moot as a result of a discretionary provision of the Court of Justice and is inconsistent with the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, according to which an act of the Tribunal does not harm anyone. The application was filed by the Madras Bar Association («MBA») under section 32; However, the grounds for challenge were not limited to the fundamental rights provided for in Part III, which raised the issue of maintainability (question of maintainability). Among other things, it has been argued that the regulation violates fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. In addition, the Rules were also challenged for violation of previous instructions of the Court concerning the appointment of the Tribunal and conditions of service. First, the author will explain the context of the dispute, as he played a central role in shaping the tribunal`s decision. In this part, the author will analyze the issue of maintainability, while leaving other challenges for the next part. Before concluding, it should be noted that even the Delhi High Court order against Yes Bank Ltd. appears to have been similarly adopted in a written application, even without the RBI being named as a party.

Despite a challenge to maintainability, which is not included in the order, the above observations would apply with equal force, according to the author. Furthermore, this order would be flawed as a breach of the principles of natural justice, as the Delhi High Court has interpreted the RBI`s guidelines to arrive at a prima facie, unrestricted opinion, as imposed by the Mumbai High Court, if the RBI is not a party to the application. Franklin J (2012) Discussion Paper: To What extent can common sense and legal reasoning be formalized? An overview of conceptual barriers. J Law Probab Risk 11(2–3):225–245. doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgs007 First of all, the Court should have regarded the question of maintainability as a precursor to the adoption of interim measures which would have the effect of essentially admitting what Transcon was seeking in prayer (d) in conjunction with prayer clause (b) of its application. The Tribunal`s jurisdiction to adjudicate Transcon`s application was challenged by ICICI not on the basis of a procedural defect, but on the basis of a substantial procedural defect related to the Court`s inherent lack of jurisdiction to exercise the public remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution against ICICI. The Court has even held that (c) depot-level maintenance is third-level maintenance performed on or off equipment in or by a large repair facility, shipyard or field service team, each with the necessary equipment and personnel with the required technical expertise. It consists of providing an assessment or repair that goes beyond the capabilities of the unit or organization.