Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned television commercial disparaged the plaintiff's product and whether ad interim injunction should be granted restraining its telecast.
Analysis: The commercial was assessed from the standpoint of a common consumer and not on the basis of technical test reports alone. It portrayed a sick child, repeated reference to "two dhakkans", a bottle and clouding effect closely resembling the plaintiff's antiseptic liquid, and suggested that the antiseptic liquid was ineffective while the defendant's soap provided "100% germ protection". Comparative advertising is permissible, but only so far as a trader praises its own product without denigrating a rival's product. The Court found that the impugned commercial went beyond mere puffery and conveyed a disparaging message about the plaintiff's antiseptic liquid. The Court also held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured protection of the plaintiff's goodwill, and that refusal of interim relief would cause irreparable harm.
Conclusion: The impugned commercial amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's product and ad interim injunction was warranted.