Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7181 to 7200 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The defendants contended that the suit, insofar as it invoked the right to be forgotten, was barred by limitation; the Court held that the plaint sought distinct reliefs for privacy, dignity and erasure of stigmatizing content apart from damages for defamation, and the suit was filed soon after the plaintiff's exoneration, hence it could not be rejected at the threshold under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation objection failed. On the challenge to the interim injunction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the Court found the trial court's order narrowly tailored, not a blanket restraint on speech, and proportionately balancing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 given irreversible reputational harm from perpetual online availability; the appeal was dismissed. - HC
The defendants contended that the suit, insofar as it invoked the right to be forgotten, was barred by limitation; the Court held that the plaint sought distinct reliefs for privacy, dignity and erasure of stigmatizing content apart from damages for defamation, and the suit was filed soon after the plaintiff's exoneration, hence it could not be rejected at the threshold under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation objection failed. On the challenge to the interim injunction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the Court found the trial court's order narrowly tailored, not a blanket restraint on speech, and proportionately balancing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 given irreversible reputational harm from perpetual online availability; the appeal was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
