WATCH: Montpellier team-mates fight each other before kick-off

first_imgThey went on to beat Racing 41-3. Jan Serfontein scored a brace of tries while Nico Janse van Rensburg, Timoci Nagusa and Louis Picamoles also crossed in the bonus-point win.The margin of victory is notable when you consider this was a top-of-the-table clash. Montpellier and Racing are leading the way in the French top flight this season, but this result now puts Vern Cotter’s team eight points clear in the table on 66 points.Racing sit second on 58 with Toulon and Toulouse, both with 57 points, following in third and fourth.Both Montpellier and Racing were missing players who were representing France in their Six Nations match against England in Paris.Related: France 22-16 England match report LATEST RUGBY WORLD MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION DEALS Montpellier’s Benjamin Fall and Yacouba Camara were heavily involved in France’s win, while Kieran Galletier made an appearance off the bench. Racing’s Maxime Machenaud, Wenceslas Lauret and Cedate Gomes Sa also played in the victory, with scrum-half Machenaud kicking four penalties.Be sure to follow Rugby World on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. It’s certainly unusual to see team-mates clashing at a match, although we do often here about times when things have boiled over in training. However, it didn’t seem to affect Montpellier’s performance at the Altrad Stadium. Montpellier team-mates fight each other before kick-offThe physical nature of rugby means we often see pushing and shoving during matches. There are tussles after scrums and penalty awards, and unfortunately there are occasions where things get more serious and punches are thrown. Yet these altercations are always between players on opposing sides.Before Montpellier’s Top 14 game against Racing 92, players from the same team were seen fighting with each other! And this wasn’t a minor incident either, with team-mates having to hold the two main Montpellier protagonists back as they tried to land punches.Footage of the scrap between Bismarck du Plessis, the former South Africa hooker, and prop Mohamed Haouas was caught by French broadcaster Canal+ – watch it here: Incredible footage of two Montpellier players tussling with each other before their Top 14 game against Racing 92 Flashpoint: Bismarck du Plessis, here in Barbarians action, was involved in a pre-match fight (Getty Images) last_img read more

“Harmful To Environment”: Uttarakhand High Court Urges Lawyers To Avoid Enclosing Documents Otherwise Available Electronically

first_imgNews Updates”Harmful To Environment”: Uttarakhand High Court Urges Lawyers To Avoid Enclosing Documents Otherwise Available Electronically LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK19 Dec 2020 6:30 AMShare This – x”The practice of enclosing the copies of Act, Rules, notifications, Government Gazettes and Judgments with the petitions, which are otherwise available electronically, are prevailing in the Court which not only imposes financial burden upon the litigants but also causes great loss to environment,” observed the Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday. A Single Bench of Justice Lok Pal…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”The practice of enclosing the copies of Act, Rules, notifications, Government Gazettes and Judgments with the petitions, which are otherwise available electronically, are prevailing in the Court which not only imposes financial burden upon the litigants but also causes great loss to environment,” observed the Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday. A Single Bench of Justice Lok Pal Singh made those remarks on nothing that the counsel for the petitioner in the case, Advocate Amar Shukla, had unnecessarily enclosed the xerox copies of the judgments with the petition. While deprecating such a practice, the Judge clarified that according to Sections 37 and 38 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, these Acts, Regulations, notifications, Government Gazettes and Judgements are admissible as evidence even if their photocopies are not submitted to the Court. The Court also mentioned Article 48A of the Constitution which states that the State shall make endeavours to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Besides this, Article 51-A (g) states that it shall be the duty of citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Expressing concern over the deteriorating environmental situation, Justice Singh stated that the paper used for making such submissions to the Court are also a contributing factor to the threat that the environment is facing right now. “Throughout the world, the imbalance of ecology is being considered as a great threat to the future generations. We are losing the rivers and forests. The paper is the produce of forest and as we use the huge paper sometimes for no reason, it ultimately damages and affects the forest which effects the environment.” The Court also referred to the direction passed by the Supreme Court about filing the cases on A4 sheets and utilising both sides of the sheet. Justice Singh stated that when such unnecessary documents are printed out, not only is the paper being wasted, but the ink is also being used in large quantities which ultimately, generates a huge amount of garbage. Before concluding, he stated, “We have reached to an alarming position from where we cannot revive the environment and in fact the situation is getting worse by each passing day. Thus, we have to make joint efforts to save the environment. The small steps to save the environment should be taken immediately. Otherwise, it will be too late to save the environment.” The Court has now directed the Registry to circulate this order to office of the Bar Association and Bar Council of Uttarakhand to apprise the lawyers that they may not annex the copy of the Act, Rules, Gazette Notification and Judgments with the petitions. Further, the Court has requested the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel to accept only two copies of the writ petitions for all the parties for the State and not to insist the parties/ litigants to supply more copies. Click Here To Download Order Read OrderNext Storylast_img read more