https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157623 Preventive restraint on newspaper publication is justified only where the apprehended prejudice to pending proceedings is real, imminent, substantial and immediate. The Court balanced freedom of speech and the press under Article 19(1)(a) against permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), including contempt of court, and applied the test of balance of convenience. As the debenture issue had already been oversubscribed and the risk of withdrawal of subscriptions had diminished, the feared prejudice was no longer sufficient to continue the injunction. The restraint was therefore treated as unnecessary and was not continued. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157623 Preventive restraint on newspaper publication is justified only where the apprehended prejudice to pending proceedings is real, imminent, substantial and immediate. The Court balanced freedom of speech and the press under Article 19(1)(a) against permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), including contempt of court, and applied the test of balance of convenience. As the debenture issue had already been oversubscribed and the risk of withdrawal of subscriptions had diminished, the feared prejudice was no longer sufficient to continue the injunction. The restraint was therefore treated as unnecessary and was not continued. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157623