Category: Uncategorized
sekarreporter1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/2345278/beardsell-wins-appeal-battle-to-protect-core-trademark-in-madras-high-court/ [08/06, 11:16] sekarreporter1: Home Canada Business Investing
[08/06, 11:16] sekarreporter1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/Tipranks/2345278/beardsell-wins-appeal-battle-to-protect-core-trademark-in-madras-high-court/ [08/06, 11:16] sekarreporter1: Home Canada Business Investing Life Opinion World Politics Personal Finance Culture More Subscribe from $0.99/week TSX -2.28% S&P 500 -2.64% DOW -1.35% NASDAQ -4.18% Oil 4.55% Dollar...
The Madras High Court held that the impugned order imposing General Penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act, 2017 could not be sustained in law because the default alleged against the petitioner, namely delayed filing of Annual Returns for FY 2020-21, was already specifically dealt with by Section 47 of the GST enactments, which prescribes Late Fee for such
[08/06, 11:11] sekarreporter1: https://taxo.online/latest-news/section-125-operates-only-in-cases-where-no-separate-penalty-is-prescribed-under-the-act-simultaneous-levy-of-late-fee-and-general-penalty-for-delayed-filing-of-returns-is-legally-impermissible-madr/ [08/06, 11:11] sekarreporter1: Taxo logo Home Products What’s New Query Free Trial Login INR (₹) Print Section 125 operates only in cases where no separate penalty is prescribed under the...
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to respond to the contempt plea by July 2, 2026. They, however, dispensed with his personal appearance before the court for now.
[08/06, 10:58] sekarreporter1: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/contempt-plea-moved-against-former-chennai-corporation-commissioner-kumaragurubaran/article71072528.ece [08/06, 10:58] sekarreporter1: Contempt plea moved against former Chennai Corporation Commissioner Kumaragurubaran A disability rights activist accuses Kumaragurubaran of having wilfully disobeyed a court order for rectification of bollards that...
Counsel for Appellants: Mr. R. Palaniandavan Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Perumpulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr.P.T.Perumal Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 Case No: AS No. 971 of 2015
[08/06, 10:25] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-sun-tv-compensation-actress-defamation-interview-veerappan-537101 [08/06, 10:25] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court has upheld an order a 2015 order of the trial court directing Sun TV to pay around Rs 10 Lakh compensation to actress...