Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
