Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96301 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 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
