人民的名义
阿里巴巴与在线贷款公司Kabbage合作，向美国中小企业贷款。_我的网站
A | 北京时间1月15日消息，阿里巴巴集团已朝着在美国扩大业务的长期目标迈出了另一步。为了增加美国小企业的销售额，阿里与美国在线贷款公司Kabbage合作，向美国中小企业贷款。 New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.
Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.
"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.
Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.
"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?
Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.
On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.
"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.
"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.
"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.
He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.
The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.
Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:
Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?
Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?
What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?
UNI SM BAV GNK。Kabbage是由软银集团投资的独角兽企业。利用大数据和机器学习技术确定中小企业贷款资格。贷款速度比传统银行快。作为后来付费的新项目的一部分，阿里在阿里巴巴网站上向高质量的美国买家提供高达15万美元的贷款。后付费是一种理财产品，被称为“国际版花瓶”。面对来自亚马逊和中国其他竞争对手的竞争，去年阿里悄悄地在美国实施了一项收购交易，以进一步发展其在美国的业务。2018年9月，阿里悄悄收购了社交购物初创企业OpenSky，以建立其北美业务。未披露购买金额。阿里早在2015年就投资了OpenSky。当时，OpenSky在美国接管了几处患病地点。
B | 现在，OpenSky经营着阿里的北美B2B业务。尽管阿里是亚洲电子商务无可争议的王者，但其与卡巴奇合作向美国中小企业贷款的决定，突显出该公司在经历了一些挫折后，选择了温和的北美扩张战略。
Current article:http://a17u5.chuanshaonianmokuanchouzhei.sbs/430/20260826/720.html
Published on:06:20:09
