[NoLurkerForLong]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

Unimaginable. This man has extraordinary lawyers to cook up stories such as this.

Also this?



https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/96964484.cms

well, he has some explaining to do on the intent of unzipping

The twist in Mishra's defence came two days after his lawyer, Manu Sharma, while seeking bail from the court of metropolitan magistrate Komal Garg, said that his client had in fact unzipped his fly but the intent was not sexual

[no_fear]

Originally Posted by alpha1

On the contrary, now he would be fully right to take Wells Fargo to court.

He can sue Wells Fargo but he has to show valid grounds for his case. California is an "at will state" which means the employer does not need any reason to fire or terminate the services of an employee and vice versa.

What Wells Fargo did is pretty standard for any corporate, and especially a bank, where optics matter a lot. Wells Fargo is already under scrutiny and has been fined heavily for several shoddy practices. The don't need an employee like Mishra to bring them in further un-needed limelight.

[drsnt]

Being a Medico and a lawyer I have a strong opinion going against the public one. With my greying hair, I have realized many times that what the public sees may not be the truth because of the fact that most of the news that we come across is "opinion" rather than true news.

Similarly in this case it would not be surprising that someone gets a chance to do a hit job on newly acquired Air India and TATA's ability to run it. Corporate rivalry can be a mean thing.

Coming to the incident, we only know things as "spoken" or narrated by others and how the media had put them before the public. At this moment I would be cautious of news being played and would not base my opinion on any of it.

Let us also not forget that world is full of people waiting to pounce on others for their hidden agendas. I have seen the accused being framed just because of their caste, or because Investing officer was of a different caste, or acquainted because of money or other reasons. Going into the depth of law and order a common man will be shocked by what goes behind the scenes. Religion, caste, money, relation to power, origin state, city or village....hundreds of other unseen factors decide media or public outcry.

And above all there's is a reason few lawyers charge crores of rupees for taking up cases. There's nothing black and white in corridors of justice, it's a long area of shades of grey.

[charanreddy]

Lawyers have never been short of creative wisdom right from the black bucks that committed suicide by gun to driver changing / self driving cars

But I feel this case will be decided (or pre decided ) by media and public sentiment . The country has branded or accepted Mishra as the culprit. Our honourable judges who mostly provide flimsy or non existent reasoning for their decisions will find Mishra guilty and charge him with an imprisonment to time already served (90 days ? )

I feel that Morgan Stanley made a mistake by firing Mishra even before he was arrested. In India the rule is “Innocent until proven Guilty” . Some additional reasons include imprisonment for an extended period of time. I sincerely doubt Mishra will file a case on employment in court.

Regarding this incident , the charge sheet will reveal more , but there are a few points the prosecution needs to explain.

1. Inordinate delay in filing the complaint by the victim : there was a delay of more than 1 month between when the incident occurred and when the complaint was filed ? Why ?

2. Was there a prior settlement between the two parties ? I am sure the defence will produce evidence of settlement . The prosecution must establish why a settlement was entertained in the first place and then why it was subsequently rejected.

3. Why has the airline not filed a case immediately. Why have they not been able to collect evidence of wrong doing or further eye witness. It is highly unlikely that such a big incident happened and people around did not notice or realise.

I am sure the defense will raise a ton of more points. If the judge is capable, he or she may be able to arrive
At a reasonable judgement. But if this case has an average judge, the judge will listen to this case over a few years and then rule per prevailing public opinion :(

[KiloAlpha]

Originally Posted by charanreddy

...

I feel that Morgan Stanley made a mistake by firing Mishra even before he was arrested. ...

I would disagree.

In any employment contract almost anywhere in the world, there is a clause that clearly states that if the employee does/says something that could harm the company's reputation, it is grounds for immediate dismissal.

Hence, it does not matter what the facts of the case are and how it ends up being adjudicated. If Wells Fargo's name starts getting dragged in the muck, it will go into damage control mode and start taking action. Usually by firing the executives involved, and then a PR blitz if necessary.

[volkman10]

Urination incident: Air India imposes four-month flying ban on Shankar Mishra.


Link

[rpunwani]

This incident is a classic case of Murphy's Law. And also a case study for customer relationships. From what has been seen & heard in the news, the following could have been done by the flight crew:-

1. Show empathy towards the lady. The crew gave her a change of clothes but did not go the extra mile in comforting her and taking charge of her soiled clothes. If they would have told her that the airline will have the clothes laundered and sent to her residence, it would have gone a long way.
2. The crew should have immediately upgraded the lady to first class and provide special attention to her. The news states that she was made to sit in the crew seat for a few hours - definitely not done for an elderly business class passenger.
3. The offender should have been handed over to the relevant authorities on arrival.
4. The airline should have provided priority disembarking, immigration, baggage retrieval & customs clearance to the lady and escorted her to her transport. If she did not have transport, the airline should have provided her one.
5. The soiled seat cushions should be have been removed and replaced with fresh clean ones.

There are many more things that could have been done as damage control. Major learning lessons for all transportation companies.

[volkman10]

Air India fined Rs 30 lakh for urination incident, pilot-in-command suspended for 3 months.

[DigitalOne]

Something doesn't add up in all this. Here are the basic facts:

Air-India Business class in a B777 has a 2-3-2 seating configuration. Seat 8A(Window) was occupied by S Bhattacharjee. There is no seat 8B. Seat 8C(Aisle) was occupied by the accused Shankar Mishra. The alleged victim was sitting in the next row seat 9A (Window).

The key witness is obviously the passenger on seat 9C, right behind Shankar Mishra, and next to the old lady victim.

If the contention of the victim/prosecution is that Shankar Mishra, in a deeply inebriated state, stood up in his seat and peed on the lady in the next row but the passenger on 9C (aisle seat, next to the victim) was not affected or even aware, then they seem to have a very weak case.

[fhdowntheline]

I cant, for the life of me understand how the Pilot in Command can have his license suspended because he did not approve a seat upgrade to a passenger mid-flight. First of all, it should not be any of the pilots business to look at who sits where unless it affects weight/balance and/or safety of the airplane. At 35000 feet, in cruise phase, should the pilot be worried about someone peeing on another or worry about the Outside air temp, fuel tank temp, route progress considering this is a ETOPS route, possibly going near polar latitudes. This is beyond ridiculous, frankly speaking.

[rajivr1612]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Something doesn't add up in all this. Here are the basic facts:

Air-India Business class in a B777 has a 2-3-2 seating configuration. Seat 8A(Window) was occupied by S Bhattacharjee. There is no seat 8B. Seat 8C(Aisle) was occupied by the accused Shankar Mishra. The alleged victim was sitting in the next row seat 9A (Window).

The key witness is obviously the passenger on seat 9C, right behind Shankar Mishra, and next to the old lady victim.

If the contention of the victim/prosecution is that Shankar Mishra, in a deeply inebriated state, stood up in his seat and peed on the lady in the next row but the passenger on 9C (aisle seat, next to the victim) was not affected or even aware, then they seem to have a very weak case.

I was thinking the same, also read this same hypothesis on Quora. Was the passenger on 9C too stoned to be unaware of the surroundings? If not, why doesn't he/she come up and provide valuable evidence?

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by rajivr1612

I was thinking the same, also read this same hypothesis on Quora. Was the passenger on 9C too stoned to be unaware of the surroundings? If not, why doesn't he/she come up and provide valuable evidence?

Or was 9C empty? Any information on this?

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by rajivr1612

Was the passenger on 9C too stoned to be unaware of the surroundings? If not, why doesn't he/she come up and provide valuable evidence?

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

Or was 9C empty? Any information on this?

9C was not empty and as per this report in Moneycontrol, the 9C passenger has apparently given a statement contradictory to the complainant (Old lady). The name of the passenger and the his/her statement is not in the public domain; it probably was given to Air India, and Air India/Shankar Mishra's lawyers might produce it later.

2) A statement of the passenger on 9C, right next to the complainant, which ran contrary to the statement made by the complainant

[Hayek]

What people forget is that there is a difference between a civil and a criminal offence. Civil cases are resolved by preponderance of evidence, Criminal cases based on beyond reasonable doubt.

Preponderance of evidence suggests that Mr Mishra was drunk and peed on the lady - she claimed this happened, a witness claimed he did it, and he admitted it when confronted and apologised for it. Hence it was right that the airline take action against him (4 month ban) and his employer fire him (as a VP, he is an at will employee who can be fired with or without cause).

What his lawyers are trying to do (aided and abetted by the Air India crew who have a strong incentive to help him given their lack of judgment) is to create reasonable doubt. That is their prerogative - though they may be suborning perjury in that process. At any rate, the criminal case will take 20 years to get finally determined - so it is practically irrelevant. I do hope that no employer is foolish enough to hire such a jerk .

[Cyborg]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

I cant, for the life of me understand how the Pilot in Command can have his license suspended because he did not approve a seat upgrade to a passenger mid-flight.

It’s not only about the upgrade, in the air a Commander is in overall command. He should have ensured things were contained and not blow up like this. If there were operational issues with flying the aircraft then it’s another matter which takes precedence over everything, but that does not seem apparent in this case.

Like the Captain on a ship, those in command either have to accept the bouquets or wear the handcuffs. It doesn’t matter if he directly made any mistake or not, it’s their overall responsibility to ensure everything is under control.

Cheers