Income Disclosure Scheme immunity and search-material requirements barred further share-transaction additions in unabated assessments under section 15...
Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellants - Defamatory Article authored by Defendant Nos. 3-5 and published by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the present Suit are defamatory to the Plaintiff - The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the ex-parte ad-interim injunction justified based on prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience favoring the respondent. The Court noted the importance of procedural adherence in granting such injunctions, emphasizing that the initial order was not arbitrary and was within legal bounds. - The Court emphasized the distinction between freedom of speech and defamation, underscoring the necessity of responsible journalism. It concluded that the appellants had not provided sufficient justification to refute the claims of defamation and upheld the injunction.
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellants - Defamatory Article authored by Defendant Nos. 3-5 and published by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the present Suit are defamatory to the Plaintiff - The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the ex-parte ad-interim injunction justified based on prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience favoring the respondent. The Court noted the importance of procedural adherence in granting such injunctions, emphasizing that the initial order was not arbitrary and was within legal bounds. - The Court emphasized the distinction between freedom of speech and defamation, underscoring the necessity of responsible journalism. It concluded that the appellants had not provided sufficient justification to refute the claims of defamation and upheld the injunction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
