Let's talk about Indians

[k1976]

Belt Tightening starts...need to finish the "World Class" projects that Yeedia signed in dotted lines

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Members of Britain’s richest family get jail terms for exploiting Indian staff at Swiss mansion​

Ajay Hinduja (left) and his wife Namrata arriving with lawyer Robert Assael at the courthouse in Geneva on June 10. PHOTO: EPA-EFE
Updated

Jun 22, 2024

GENEVA – A Swiss court handed jail sentences to four members of Britain’s richest family on June 21 for exploiting the Indian staff at their Geneva mansion.
The Hindujas – who were not present in court – were acquitted of human trafficking, but convicted of other charges in a stunning verdict for the family, whose fortune is estimated at £37 billion (S$63.4 billion).
Prakash Hinduja and his wife Kamal each got four years and six months, while their son Ajay and his wife Namrata received four-year terms, the presiding judge in Geneva ruled.
The cases stem from the family’s practice of bringing servants from their native India and included accusations of confiscating their passports once they were flown to Switzerland.
Prosecutors argued the family paid their staff a pittance and gave them little freedom to leave the house.
The family denied the allegations, claiming the prosecutors wanted to “do in the Hindujas”.
The family reached a confidential out-of-court settlement with the three employees who made the accusations against them.

Despite this, the prosecution decided to pursue the case because of the gravity of the charges.
Geneva prosecutor Yves Bertossa had requested a custodial sentence of 5½ years against Prakash and Kamal Hinduja.
Aged 78 and 75, respectively, both had been absent since the start of the trial for health reasons.

In his closing address, the prosecutor accused the family of abusing the “asymmetrical situation” between powerful employer and vulnerable employee to save money.
Household staff were paid a salary of between 220 Swiss francs (S$330) and 400 Swiss francs a month, far below what they could expect to earn in Switzerland.
“They’re profiting from the misery of the world,” Mr Bertossa told the court.

‘Not mistreated slaves’​

But the family’s defence lawyers argued that the three plaintiffs received ample benefits, were not kept in isolation and were free to leave the mansion.
“We are not dealing with mistreated slaves,” Mr Nicolas Jeandin told the court.
Indeed, the employees “were grateful to the Hindujas for offering them a better life”, his fellow lawyer, Mr Robert Assael, argued.

Lawyers Yael Hayat (centre right), Robert Assael (third from right) and Nicolas Jeandin (second from right) arriving at court with their clients Ajay Hinduja (second from left) and his wife Namrata (centre left). PHOTO: EPA-EFE

Representing Ajay Hinduja, lawyer Yael Hayat had slammed the “excessive” indictment, arguing the trial should be a question of “justice, not social justice”.
Namrata Hinduja’s lawyer, Mr Romain Jordan, also pleaded for acquittal, claiming the prosecutors were aiming to make an example of the family.
He argued that the prosecution had failed to mention payments made to staff on top of their cash salaries.
Mr Assael said: “No employee was cheated out of his or her salary.”
Some staff even asked for raises, which they received.
With interests in oil and gas, banking and healthcare, the Hinduja Group is present in 38 countries and employs around 200,000 people. AFP

 

[bigozt]

I hate the laws Snake made

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

India college entrance exam scandal spreads with criminal probe​

A student shouts as she protests outside the Ministry of Education at New Delhi on June 20. PHOTO: REUTERS

Jun 24, 2024

NEW DELHI – India’s government launched a criminal investigation into allegations of cheating and corruption in national entrance exams for medical colleges and removed the head of the agency in charge of handling the tests as student protests over the growing scandal continued to mount.
The Central Bureau of Investigation said on June 23 that it will probe alleged irregularities, “including conspiracy, cheating, impersonation, breach of trust, and destruction of evidence by candidates, institutes, and middlemen”.
A day earlier, the government replaced the director-general of the National Testing Agency, Mr Subodh Kumar Singh, with immediate effect.
The decision follows mounting pressure from opposition parties and protests by thousands of students demanding a cancellation of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission into undergraduate medical programmes for the current academic year, which are set by the federal government.
Some 2.4 million students took the exam in May, competing for the more than 100,000 seats in state-run and private medical colleges.
An unusual high number of students scored perfect scores in the exam, prompting allegations of cheating and the possible leaking of exam papers.
The scandal presents Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government with its first real challenge since taking office after elections ended in June.

Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party is forced to share power in a coalition government after losing its outright majority in the parliament.
The Indian National Congress, the country’s main opposition group, has vowed to raise the exam scandal in the first session of the new parliament, which began on June 24.
Exam paper leaks are not uncommon in India. However, the alleged irregularities this time have taken centre stage in the country and raised questions about the entire testing system.
Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan told reporters last week that the government scrapped entrance tests for doctorate programmes after an inquiry revealed the exam paper was available on the “dark net”. BLOOMBERG

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Excessive when millions are living in poverty in India.

What a US$600 million wedding says about India’s attitude to wealth​

The Ambani nuptials enticed everyone, from Justin Bieber and Shah Rukh Khan to John Kerry.​

The Economist

Drummers perform as staff members of the house of Indian businessman Mukesh Ambani dance on the day of Anant Ambani's wedding in Mumbai, on July 12.

Jul 18, 2024

When Beyonce performed at a pre-wedding party for Ms Isha Ambani in 2018, India was agog. Merely receiving an invitation conferred bragging rights on status-obsessed business leaders and politicians. The cost of the nuptials, with countless ancillary events, was said to be in excess of US$100 million (S$134 million).
That is a staggering sum for almost anyone – but not the Ambani family, which owns a controlling interest in Reliance Industries, the country’s most valuable company, dominating everything from telecommunications to oil refining. Despite some anti-rich finger-wagging, many Indians appear to have viewed the event, which even the maharajas of yore would envy, as evidence that India – and Indian business – could once again glitter.
You might therefore have expected the months-long wedding celebrations of Ms Isha’s brother Anant, which concluded on July 14, to provoke a similarly positive response. It featured even more international stars (Katy Perry, Justin Bieber and Rihanna), more bling (outfits embroidered in gold along with enough golf ball-size rubies, diamonds and emeralds) and a higher price tag (the figure US$600 million has been bandied about).
It contributed handsomely to India’s booming matrimony business, which generates perhaps US$130 billion a year in revenues (only food makes up a bigger share of Indians’ retail spending). Behind the innumerable beautiful saris at the Ambani wedding were thousands of designers, tailors and seamstresses; behind the dances and elaborate backdrops were thousands of choreographers, musicians and carpenters. The wedding filled hotels, private jets, a fleet of golf carts and at least one cruise ship.
Yet instead of awe and pride, the reaction this time was considerably more mixed. As the Juggernaut, an online publication, summed it up, it “shows us the power of Asia’s richest family. But it also gave us the ick”.

A decorated Rolls-Royce car carrying guests leaves Antilia, the house of Indian businessman Mukesh Ambani, on the day of Anant Ambani’s wedding in Mumbai, on July 12. PHOTO: REUTERS
It was not just the Juggernaut that felt a bit icky. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi did make an appearance at one of the events leading up to the ceremony. But the Gandhi family, which leads the left-of-centre political opposition, pointedly did not. Foreign political leaders who attended were mostly former ones (Mr Tony Blair, Mr Boris Johnson) or seemed an odd fit. Mr John Kerry, America’s former climate envoy, was rubbing shoulders with Mr Amin Nasser, chief executive of Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company, at an event bankrolled by wealth derived primarily from Reliance’s giant petrochemicals operation that, to complicate matters further, refines oil from Russia.
Indeed, Mr Anant’s extravaganza looks likely to be the last of its kind for a while. That is not just because he was the last unwed child of Mr Mukesh, the Ambani clan’s patriarch, and because no one (with the possible exception of the family of Mr Gautam Adani, India’s second-richest industrialist) can match the Ambanis’ deep pockets. Mr Modi’s government has become increasingly aware of voters’ distaste for rising inequality, which may have cost his Bharatiya Janata Party its absolute majority in a general election earlier in 2024.


Strong gross domestic product (GDP) growth and a soaring stock market have created more wealth for India’s rich, but not that many new jobs or wage gains for its poor. Between Ms Isha’s and Mr Anant’s weddings, India’s GDP per person rose from US$2,000 to US$2,500 (not adjusted for inflation). By comparison, in the same period, the Ambani family fortune swelled from US$47 billion to US$122 billion.
More gallingly to many Indians, it has shot up by US$10 billion in the past month alone. Reliance’s share price rose by 8 per cent after the company’s Jio telecoms business raised prices for its 470 million customers. To the Ambanis, this may have made their US$600 million celebrations look like a bargain. To almost everyone else, it makes them look disconnected from India’s economic and social reality. © 2024 THE ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER LIMITED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

[laksaboy]

Let's enjoy a nice Bollywood movie scene.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Violet Oon and children reach out-of-court settlement with business partner, end partnership​

Violet Oon (seated) with her son Tay Yiming (left), daughter Tay Su-lyn and business partner Manoj Murjani in 2018. PHOTO: ST FILE

Tan Hsueh Yun
Senior Correspondent

Jul 18, 2024

SINGAPORE – Luxury and lifestyle company Group MMM and its director Manoj Murjani said they have reached an out-of-court settlement to end their business partnership with Peranakan cooking doyenne Violet Oon and her children.
Mr Murjani, 54, had bought a 50 per cent share in Ms Oon’s business, now with three restaurants, in 2014.
In a statement, he said the two parties had “reached an out-of-court settlement to end our partnership of the better part of a decade”. Ms Oon, 75, owns 50 per cent of the business with her children, Ms Tay Su-lyn and Mr Tay Yiming.
He added: “I wish Violet, Ming and Su all the best in their endeavours and trust that they will continue flying the flag for Singapore and Peranakan cuisine. I look forward to perhaps one day enjoying one of Violet’s meals again.”
Ms Oon and her children brought a shareholder oppression suit against Mr Murjani and Group MMM. They asked the court to grant an order for them to buy Mr Murjani’s 50 per cent stake in Violet Oon Inc, or for the company to be wound up.
They also asked for a shareholders’ agreement, signed in February 2019, to be invalidated, alleging it was signed under “duress and undue influence” from Mr Murjani.
The eight-day trial took place in July 2023.

In January 2024, the Oon family won the civil suit, with Singapore’s High Court ordering that the family buy out Mr Murjani’s 50 per cent stake in the company at fair value. The High Court’s view was that he and Group MMM’s conduct in the case made it “intolerable” for Ms Oon and her children to work with them.

Violet Oon Inc runs three restaurants, at National Gallery Singapore, Ion and this one at Jewel Changi Airport. PHOTO: VIOLET OON
On July 3, 2024, the High Court ordered Group MMM and Mr Murjani to pay $299,000 in legal costs to Ms Oon and her children.
When contacted, Ms Oon and her children declined to comment.

 

[k1976]

 

[steffychun]

You lao sai after eating their food.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Short-seller’s claims of Adani conflict of interest denied by India’s market regulator chief​

Hindenburg Research accused Ms Madhabi Puri Buch, the chair of India’s market regulator, of conflicts of interest. PHOTO: REUTERS

Aug 12, 2024

MUMBAI - Adani Group’s stocks fell on Aug 12 after Hindenburg Research accused the head of India’s market regulator of having conflicts of interest that allegedly prevented a thorough probe into its claims of manipulation and fraud at the conglomerate.
Shares of Adani Enterprises, the group’s flagship, slid as much as 5.3 per cent in early Mumbai trading, before paring some of their declines. Adani Energy Solutions plunged as much as 17 per cent as all of the conglomerate’s 10 stocks dropped.
In a report published on Aug 10, US short-seller Hindenburg said Ms Madhabi Puri Buch – the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) – and her husband Dhaval Buch invested in offshore entities that were allegedly part of a fund structure in which Mr Vinod Adani, the brother of billionaire Gautam Adani, also had investments.
The Buchs denied the allegations.
The investments by the couple were made in 2015, two years before Ms Madhabi was appointed to Sebi, Hindenburg said, citing whistleblower information and other documents Bloomberg was not able to verify.
The fund structure is managed by India Infoline, a financial services and wealth management firm.
“We would like to state that we strongly deny the baseless allegations and insinuations made in the report,” the Buchs wrote in a statement shared by a Sebi representative. “All disclosures as required have already been furnished to Sebi over the years.”

The face-off between Hindenburg and Sebi is escalating, weeks after the short-seller was queried by the Indian regulator about its scathing report against Adani in early 2023.
The report wiped out more than US$150 billion (S$198 billion) in the Adani companies’ market value in February 2023, and led India’s top court to order a Sebi probe on possible Adani violations and any suspicious trading activity.
While Sebi has yet to make a case against the Adani Group, the regulator had sent Adani officials and Hindenburg notices seeking further information on suspected regulatory violations.

Hindenburg’s latest broadside at the Indian regulator for not acting tough on Adani comes at a time when the conglomerate has just returned to tapping equity investors and is back on its aggressive growth spree.
The securities regulator said on Aug 11 it had completed 23 of 24 investigations into the Adani Group, with one remaining probe “close to completion”.
It also added that proceedings in its investigation into whether Hindenburg violated securities laws are ongoing.
Disclosures made
Sebi “has adequate internal mechanisms for addressing issues relating to conflict of interest, which include disclosure framework and provision for recusal”, the regulator said in a statement.
“It is noted that relevant disclosures required in terms of holdings of securities and their transfers have been made by the chairperson from time to time. The chairperson has also recused herself in matters involving potential conflicts of interest.”
A spokesperson for the Adani Group said on Aug 11 that the latest Hindenburg allegations are “manipulative selections of publicly available information”.
The ports-to-power Adani conglomerate has repeatedly denied the short-seller’s accusations of share manipulation and accounting fraud.
“The Adani Group has absolutely no commercial relationship with the individuals or matters mentioned” in the latest report, the spokesperson said via a stock exchange filing on Aug 11.
“Our overseas holding structure is fully transparent” with regular disclosures, it added.
Hindenburg’s report on Aug 10 did not explicitly mention the precise nature of its current exposure to the Indian market.
While short-sellers in recent years have increasingly found themselves in regulatory crosshairs from the US to South Korea, it is unusual for such a company to call out the chief of an overseas market regulator on alleged ethical issues.
The fund that the Buchs invested in was the IPE-Plus Fund set up through India Infoline or IIFL, Hindenburg said.
The company in question now trades as 360 ONE WAM, and it said on Aug 11 the “IPE-Plus Fund 1 made zero investments in any shares of the Adani Group either directly or indirectly” throughout its tenure in the six years to October 2019.
“The fund was managed as a discretionary fund by the investment manager,” 360 ONE WAM said in an exchange filing.
“No investor had any involvement in the fund’s operations or investment decisions.”
Holdings by the Buchs in the fund were less than 1.5 per cent of its total inflow, it said.
The Buchs plan to issue a more detailed statement “in the interest of complete transparency”.
“We have no hesitation in disclosing any and all financial documents, including those that relate to the period when we were strictly private citizens, to any and every authority that may seek them,” they said.
A former investment banker and chief executive of ICICI Securities, Ms Madhabi moved to Singapore in 2011 where she joined Greater Pacific Capital, an Asia-focused fund.
She returned to India in 2017 to be appointed a full-time member of Sebi. In 2022, she was named chairwoman.
Hindenburg also raised questions about Ms Madhabi promoting real estate investment trusts (Reits) as a promising asset class without disclosing that Mr Dhaval is now an adviser to Blackstone, which has sponsored two of the four listed Reits in India.
Mr Dhaval has been a senior adviser to Blackstone Private Equity since 2019, before Ms Madhabi became Sebi’s chairwoman.
BLOOMBERG

 

[myfoot123]

I know Donald Trump detested them greatly.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Police find no threatening items on Singapore-bound flight from India following bomb threat​

Two of RSAF’s F-15SGs scrambled and escorted the plane away from populated areas. The plane landed safely at Changi Airport. PHOTO: NG ENG HEN/FACEBOOK
Chin Hui Shan and Lok Jian Wen

Oct 16, 2024

SINGAPORE – No threatening items were found aboard an Air India Express plane heading to Singapore from India, the police said on Oct 16 after completing security checks on the low-cost carrier’s aircraft at Changi Airport.
The airline had received an e-mail about an alleged bomb threat on flight AXB684 bound for Singapore from southern Indian city Madurai which landed in Changi Airport, escorted by fighter aircraft on Oct 15.
Two F-15 fighter jets from the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) had been scrambled to escort the plane, which landed at Changi Airport at 10.04pm, more than an hour after its 8.50pm scheduled arrival.
In response to queries, the police said they were informed of the bomb threat at 8.25pm and completed checks after the plane landed. Investigations are ongoing and action will be taken against those who intentionally cause public alarm, the police added.
Flight tracker Flightradar24 showed the plane was circling for about an hour in the east of Singapore before landing.
In a Facebook post, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said: “Two of our RSAF’s F-15SGs scrambled and escorted the plane away from populated areas, to finally land safely at Singapore Changi Airport at around 10.04pm tonight. Our Ground Based Air Defence systems and Explosive Ordnance Disposal team were also activated.”
When it landed, the plane was handed to the airport police, he added. Investigations are ongoing.

“Many thanks to the dedication and professionalism of our Singapore Armed Forces and Home Team that keep us safe in our homes, even when threats exist around us.”

According to Flightradar24, the flight was circling for about an hour in the east of Singapore. PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM FLIGHTRADAR24.COM
Local media reported at least five Indian flights received bomb threats on Oct 15, prompting emergency checks, with at least two flights making emergency landings.
An Ayodhya-bound Air India Express flight on Oct 15 received a bomb threat via a phone call, reported The Times of India, adding that the flight later made an emergency landing.
An Air India plane, flying from India’s capital, New Delhi, to Chicago, was forced to make an emergency landing in Canada. The airline said it was the subject of “a security threat posted online” and as a “precautionary measure” landed at Iqaluit Airport in Canada, AFP reported.

 

[steffychun]

Police find no threatening items on Singapore-bound flight from India following bomb threat​

Two of RSAF’s F-15SGs scrambled and escorted the plane away from populated areas. The plane landed safely at Changi Airport. PHOTO: NG ENG HEN/FACEBOOK
Chin Hui Shan and Lok Jian Wen

Oct 16, 2024

SINGAPORE – No threatening items were found aboard an Air India Express plane heading to Singapore from India, the police said on Oct 16 after completing security checks on the low-cost carrier’s aircraft at Changi Airport.
The airline had received an e-mail about an alleged bomb threat on flight AXB684 bound for Singapore from southern Indian city Madurai which landed in Changi Airport, escorted by fighter aircraft on Oct 15.
Two F-15 fighter jets from the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) had been scrambled to escort the plane, which landed at Changi Airport at 10.04pm, more than an hour after its 8.50pm scheduled arrival.
In response to queries, the police said they were informed of the bomb threat at 8.25pm and completed checks after the plane landed. Investigations are ongoing and action will be taken against those who intentionally cause public alarm, the police added.
Flight tracker Flightradar24 showed the plane was circling for about an hour in the east of Singapore before landing.
In a Facebook post, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said: “Two of our RSAF’s F-15SGs scrambled and escorted the plane away from populated areas, to finally land safely at Singapore Changi Airport at around 10.04pm tonight. Our Ground Based Air Defence systems and Explosive Ordnance Disposal team were also activated.”
When it landed, the plane was handed to the airport police, he added. Investigations are ongoing.

“Many thanks to the dedication and professionalism of our Singapore Armed Forces and Home Team that keep us safe in our homes, even when threats exist around us.”

According to Flightradar24, the flight was circling for about an hour in the east of Singapore. PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM FLIGHTRADAR24.COM
Local media reported at least five Indian flights received bomb threats on Oct 15, prompting emergency checks, with at least two flights making emergency landings.
An Ayodhya-bound Air India Express flight on Oct 15 received a bomb threat via a phone call, reported The Times of India, adding that the flight later made an emergency landing.
An Air India plane, flying from India’s capital, New Delhi, to Chicago, was forced to make an emergency landing in Canada. The airline said it was the subject of “a security threat posted online” and as a “precautionary measure” landed at Iqaluit Airport in Canada, AFP reported.

They do smell.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

High Court dismisses claim of ex-flight steward who sued SIA for over $1m after fall on plane​

Mr Durairaj Santiran had claimed that the fall caused injuries to his spine, leaving him medically unfit to continue working as a flight steward. PHOTO: ST FILE

Nadine Chua

Oct 18, 2024

SINGAPORE – A former flight steward who sued Singapore Airlines for over $1 million, after he claimed to have slipped on a grease patch on board a plane, has had his claim dismissed by the High Court.
Mr Durairaj Santiran, 35, claimed that the fall caused injuries to his spine, leaving him medically unfit to continue working as a flight steward.
The Malaysian also claimed his former employer was negligent for allowing the workplace to be unsafe.
But in a judgement on Oct 18, Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy said he found that there was, in fact, no slippery area on the floor of the SIA aircraft.
The judge also said he did not accept Mr Durairaj’s claim that SIA had breached the duty of care that it owed to him.
Mr Durairaj claimed he had slipped and fell on a “patch of grease” on the floor of the economy-class galley during a flight from San Francisco to Singapore on Sept 6, 2019.
He said that he still suffers pain in his back and neck while sitting, standing, walking or running, and that he requires frequent breaks and painkillers to cope with the pain.

Mr Durairaj, who was employed by SIA from April 2016 to April 2021 on a salary of $6,058 a month, now works as a customer care analyst in Malaysia, where he earns RM4,200 (S$1,280) a month.
Over half of his total claim for damages was almost $700,000 for the loss of future earnings.
In dismissing the claim, the judge said he found that no foreign substance was present on the surface of the gallery floor that made it slippery.

A reason for this finding was that Mr Durairaj was not a credible witness.
Justice Vinodh said there were several material, self-serving and unexplained variances between what Mr Durairaj said in his statement of claim and the evidence that he gave at the trial.
In his statement of claim, Mr Durairaj said he immediately told the leading stewardess, Ms Christina Chia, about a “grease patch” on the floor of the gallery upon discovering it.
He said he attempted to clean it only after Ms Chia instructed him to do so.
But at the trial, he gave a different account. He said he had tried to clean the grease patch using paper hand towels and disinfectant on his own initiative while the plane was still taxiing for takeoff – before reporting the issue to Ms Chia.
More On This Topic
Injured worker’s suit against employer: Judge throws out defence’s claim of ‘waiver’ signed
Maximum compensation for workplace-related injuries to increase by about 19 per cent in 2025
In his statement of claim, Mr Durairaj also said that despite his best efforts, he could not remove the grease using disinfectant cleaning spray and a paper hand towel.
However, during cross-examination at the trial, Mr Durairaj said he removed the greasy patch, although the surface of the floor was still slippery.
He then told the court a new version of events, saying the slippery area appeared shiny to him but was invisible to everyone else.
However, the judge noted that the other crew members gave evidence that they did not see any grease or other foreign substance on the galley floor at any time during the flight.
He also found that SIA did not breach its duty of care to Mr Durairaj, as there were measures taken to minimise the risk of anyone slipping and falling on board its aircraft.
This included an intensive training programme to teach all new cabin crew members how to identify potential risks of inflight work accidents and how to prevent them.
In his judgment, Justice Vinodh noted that this was not the first time Mr Durairaj suffered a workplace injury during his employment as a flight steward with SIA.
Besides the injury related to the current claim, Mr Durairaj suffered six other workplace injuries between April 2017 and April 2019.
In April 2017, he injured his back while helping a passenger close an overhead luggage compartment. He filed a claim for compensation and was awarded over $26,000.
In January 2018, he slipped and fell from a staircase while exiting the crew bunk and required surgery. SIA paid for his surgery and he was awarded over $91,000 after filing a compensation claim.
He also bruised the tip of his finger while opening a compartment door and broke his left fingernail while handling a meal cart, which were minor injuries that were resolved without treatment or claim.

 

[Chong Ren]

High Court dismisses claim of ex-flight steward who sued SIA for over $1m after fall on plane​

Mr Durairaj Santiran had claimed that the fall caused injuries to his spine, leaving him medically unfit to continue working as a flight steward. PHOTO: ST FILE

Nadine Chua

Oct 18, 2024

SINGAPORE – A former flight steward who sued Singapore Airlines for over $1 million, after he claimed to have slipped on a grease patch on board a plane, has had his claim dismissed by the High Court.
Mr Durairaj Santiran, 35, claimed that the fall caused injuries to his spine, leaving him medically unfit to continue working as a flight steward.
The Malaysian also claimed his former employer was negligent for allowing the workplace to be unsafe.
But in a judgement on Oct 18, Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy said he found that there was, in fact, no slippery area on the floor of the SIA aircraft.
The judge also said he did not accept Mr Durairaj’s claim that SIA had breached the duty of care that it owed to him.
Mr Durairaj claimed he had slipped and fell on a “patch of grease” on the floor of the economy-class galley during a flight from San Francisco to Singapore on Sept 6, 2019.
He said that he still suffers pain in his back and neck while sitting, standing, walking or running, and that he requires frequent breaks and painkillers to cope with the pain.

Mr Durairaj, who was employed by SIA from April 2016 to April 2021 on a salary of $6,058 a month, now works as a customer care analyst in Malaysia, where he earns RM4,200 (S$1,280) a month.
Over half of his total claim for damages was almost $700,000 for the loss of future earnings.
In dismissing the claim, the judge said he found that no foreign substance was present on the surface of the gallery floor that made it slippery.

A reason for this finding was that Mr Durairaj was not a credible witness.
Justice Vinodh said there were several material, self-serving and unexplained variances between what Mr Durairaj said in his statement of claim and the evidence that he gave at the trial.
In his statement of claim, Mr Durairaj said he immediately told the leading stewardess, Ms Christina Chia, about a “grease patch” on the floor of the gallery upon discovering it.
He said he attempted to clean it only after Ms Chia instructed him to do so.
But at the trial, he gave a different account. He said he had tried to clean the grease patch using paper hand towels and disinfectant on his own initiative while the plane was still taxiing for takeoff – before reporting the issue to Ms Chia.
More On This Topic
Injured worker’s suit against employer: Judge throws out defence’s claim of ‘waiver’ signed
Maximum compensation for workplace-related injuries to increase by about 19 per cent in 2025
In his statement of claim, Mr Durairaj also said that despite his best efforts, he could not remove the grease using disinfectant cleaning spray and a paper hand towel.
However, during cross-examination at the trial, Mr Durairaj said he removed the greasy patch, although the surface of the floor was still slippery.
He then told the court a new version of events, saying the slippery area appeared shiny to him but was invisible to everyone else.
However, the judge noted that the other crew members gave evidence that they did not see any grease or other foreign substance on the galley floor at any time during the flight.
He also found that SIA did not breach its duty of care to Mr Durairaj, as there were measures taken to minimise the risk of anyone slipping and falling on board its aircraft.
This included an intensive training programme to teach all new cabin crew members how to identify potential risks of inflight work accidents and how to prevent them.
In his judgment, Justice Vinodh noted that this was not the first time Mr Durairaj suffered a workplace injury during his employment as a flight steward with SIA.
Besides the injury related to the current claim, Mr Durairaj suffered six other workplace injuries between April 2017 and April 2019.
In April 2017, he injured his back while helping a passenger close an overhead luggage compartment. He filed a claim for compensation and was awarded over $26,000.
In January 2018, he slipped and fell from a staircase while exiting the crew bunk and required surgery. SIA paid for his surgery and he was awarded over $91,000 after filing a compensation claim.
He also bruised the tip of his finger while opening a compartment door and broke his left fingernail while handling a meal cart, which were minor injuries that were resolved without treatment or claim.

The journalist Nadine Chua face looked like she had enjoyed an Indian cock in her the night before

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Singapore judge chides lawyer for convoluted mitigation filled with grammatical errors​

District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation. PHOTO: PIXABAY

Samuel Devaraj

Nov 19, 2024

SINGAPORE - A judge chided a criminal lawyer for the poor quality of a written mitigation plea the latter submitted to the court on behalf of a client who admitted to a cheating charge.
In a judgment dated Nov 11, District Judge Lim Tse Haw said he told Mr A. Revi Shanker that his mitigation was “so convoluted and verbose” and filled with grammatical errors, that he had difficulty understanding what the lawyer was trying to submit.
The judge said: “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner. This would save much valuable judicial time in reading and understanding the submissions.”
In order to understand the mitigation, he asked Mr Shanker to make an oral presentation in court.
Mr Shanker’s client Jeremy Francis Cruez was sentenced to six months’ jail in October. The 60-year-old Sri Lankan national had admitted to cheating his former company, Major’s Pest Management Services.
The prosecution had asked for a jail term of between 14 and 16 months, while Mr Shanker asked for a fine.

While both sides appealed the sentence, court records show that Cruez has since discontinued his appeal.

As a fumigation manager, Cruez was responsible for ensuring that the supplies required for fumigation works were obtained.
Between April 13, 2017 and Oct 22, 2019, he submitted fake or forged invoices to his company for fumigation-related supplies from six suppliers, seeking a total of $190,455.60. The amount was to be paid in cash.
In fact, Cruez had bought the supplies from other sources and marked up the prices in the fake or forged invoices by 5 per cent. He had intended to pocket the difference.

When he was questioned by the company’s managing director why the suppliers required cash payment, he explained that they had been paid in cash under Major’s previous managing director.
He provided e-mails from the suppliers who purportedly requested for payment in cash or for the cheque to be made out to a person called Myrna, who was stated to be an “executive in charge of accounts” in the e-mails. However, Myrna was his close friend who was working as a domestic helper.
Believing the ruse, the company disbursed $190,455.60 as payment for the supplies to either Cruez or Myrna.
In the judgment, District Judge Lim highlighted the first paragraph of Mr Shanker’s mitigation, which comprised a single sentence of 176 words.
In the paragraph, among many other points, Mr Shanker said his client had to “live at the mercy of friends and relatives whose assistance is only, not unexpectedly, thinning away such that his queues for food (breakfast, lunch and dinner) on a daily basis at religious place of worship and other organisations have become more frequent”.
District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation.
To avoid any misunderstanding of the mitigation, the judge asked the lawyer to summarise orally at a hearing on Oct 22, 2024, what he was trying to submit.
Mr Shanker said during the hearing that Cruez was not qualifying his plea of guilt.
He added that his client had offered to make full restitution to Major’s Pest Management Services of the sum of $12,953.73, which was Cruez’s personal gains from the offence. But the offer was declined by the pest control company.
While rejecting the defence’s submission for a fine, District Judge Lim said the prosecution’s submission for 14 to 16 month’s jail was manifestly excessive.
“Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of $190,455.60 and left the company in a lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months’ imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate,” he said.

The first paragraph of the mitigation plea that District Judge Lim Tse Haw deemed convoluted and verbose. PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS

 

[cocobobo]

Really live up the stereotype