Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Legal implication of a promotional trailer - absence of specific content from the trailer in the movie - promotional trailer is an offer or a promise - unfair trade practice - The Supreme Court clarified that a promotional trailer is unilateral and does not constitute an offer or contract. It serves to encourage viewers to purchase tickets for the movie but does not create any binding agreement regarding the content of the film. The Court held that there was no deficiency of service as the transaction of purchasing a movie ticket was independent of the promotional trailer. The absence of specific content from the trailer in the movie did not amount to a breach of contract or deficiency in the service provided.
Legal implication of a promotional trailer - absence of specific content from the trailer in the movie - promotional trailer is an offer or a promise - unfair trade practice - The Supreme Court clarified that a promotional trailer is unilateral and does not constitute an offer or contract. It serves to encourage viewers to purchase tickets for the movie but does not create any binding agreement regarding the content of the film. The Court held that there was no deficiency of service as the transaction of purchasing a movie ticket was independent of the promotional trailer. The absence of specific content from the trailer in the movie did not amount to a breach of contract or deficiency in the service provided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.