Casagrand unveils high-rise apartments & villa project in Hyd
Hyderabad: Casagrand, a real estate developer, announced the launch of its fourth residential project in the city named as, Casagrand GS Infinity. The residential community is spread across 4.8 acres, consisting of 405 three and four BHK high-rise apartments and five BHK floor villas, starting at a price range of Rs1.85 crore.
The features of the community includes, a 41,000 sft clubhouse and about 100 amenities such as an oxygen-infused gym, AR-enabled squash and badminton courts, a mini-golf course, pickleball court, sky cinema, rooftop cafe and dining, nature walkways, and others. The project features three independent skyscrapers, each rising to 35 floors, and two acres of landscaped greenery.
'With upcoming metro rail connectivity, robust infrastructure projects, and rapid urban growth, Attapur is fast emerging as one of the city's most coveted residential destinations, making Casagrand GS Infinity not just a prestigious address, but also a future-ready investment for professionals, families, and investors alike,' the developer said in a press release.
Casagrand further added that the project is inspired by the aesthetics of Manhattan-styled condominiums. Casagrand GS Infinity offers ultra-spacious residences with full-length private balconies, luxury interiors, and four homes per floor, ensuring privacy, cross-ventilation, and a boutique-living experience. 'Each home is built with the finest materials, engineered for perfection, and designed to meet the aspirations of a global, design-conscious audience,' it added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump administration seeks pause of second tariff case after loss
* Two courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs exceed the president's authority * Trump administration is appealing both rulings * Tariffs remain in effect for now, after an earlier appeals court ruling NEW YORK, - The Trump administration on Monday asked a U.S. appeals court to pause a second court ruling that found the president had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on imports, saying the decision jeopardizes trade negotiations with other nations. Trump's tariffs were first declared illegal by the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade on May 28. A federal court in Washington, D.C. followed with a second ruling the next day, which also found that the tariffs exceeded the president's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The lawsuits which led to those rulings challenged Trump's use of the law to justify the so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports imposed in early April on most U.S trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on China, Mexico and Canada in February. The latter are related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., allegations the countries deny. The Trump administration has already won a temporary pause of the first court loss, allowing it to reinstate tariffs during the early stages of the appeal. The court is expected to rule on the Trump administration's request for a longer-term pause later this month. The second ruling, from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras had less immediate impact than the Court of International Trade ruling, because it only stopped the Trump administration from collecting tariffs from two small businesses that had sued whereas the trade court ruling blocked the tariffs that had been challenged broadly. But it contained a more direct finding that IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs, going further than the more nuanced ruling in the Court of International Trade. A blunt ruling that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs undercuts Trump's ability to use tariffs as a 'credible threat' in trade talks, the Department of Justice wrote in an emergency motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the D.C. district court. Four senior Trump officials, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Lee Greer had submitted affidavits to Contreras before his May 29 ruling, saying that stopping the tariffs would threaten the United States' economic and national security by jeopardizing 'delicate' trade negotiations with dozens of other nations. The small businesses that brought the lawsuit, educational toy makers Learning Resources Inc and hand2mind, said they would oppose the Trump administration's attempt to block the lower court ruling.
India Today
30-05-2025
- India Today
Trump lashes out at US federal court over tariff ruling: It is purely hatred
US President Donald Trump has launched a scathing attack on the US Court of International Trade after it blocked his controversial "Liberation Day" tariffs, which aimed to impose sweeping duties on countries with trade surpluses over a blistering post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump alleged political bias, accused judges of undermining presidential authority, and even turned his ire toward the conservative legal organisation that helped shape his judicial US Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of TRUMP?" the President wrote. The Manhattan-based court had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by attempting to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law intended to address national emergencies arising from "unusual and extraordinary" threats. The court found that Congress did not grant the President limitless powers under the decision halted the implementation of a sweeping tariff regime that Trump's team dubbed the "Liberation Day" duties. The President has claimed these tariffs brought "trillions of dollars" into the US and were central to his strategy for confronting unfair trade practices by foreign governments."International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom hustlers must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten! With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do what's right for the Country! In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the USA from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get," Trump said. The court case stems from Trump's expansive interpretation of the IEEPA, under which he sought to justify sweeping tariffs against nations running persistent trade surpluses with the US. The administration claimed the tariffs were part of a broader effort to rebalance global trade and secure US told the court that Trump's tariff moves helped mediate global crises, including a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in early May after the two nuclear-armed neighbours had edged toward conflict after an April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, carried out by Pakistan-based terror outfit. They also warned that ongoing trade negotiations, particularly with China, were in a "delicate state", with a July 7 deadline looming for finalising the trade court remained unconvinced. In its ruling, the bench emphasised that IEEPA permits sanctions only when necessary to counter a bona fide emergency, not as a broad license for economic the White House expressed its disagreement with the US Court of International Trade for blocking the Trump administration's move to impose sweeping tariffs on other countries. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt lambasted the court's ruling, saying judiciary has no role in President's decisions. "These judges failed to acknowledge that the President of the United States has core foreign affairs powers aur authority given to hum by Congress to protect the United States' economy and national security. The courts should have no role here," she said. For now, a higher federal appeals court has temporarily stayed the trade court's ruling, giving the Trump camp a brief reprieve as the legal battle InMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
30-05-2025
- First Post
US court temporarily reinstates Trump tariffs a day after being struck down: What comes next in the battle?
A day after Trump received a jolt with the US trade court blocking his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, an appeals court reinstated the levies, giving the US president a temporary reprieve at least until June 5. Wary of the court's decision, the administration is already considering a 'Plan B' to impose taxes on imports. What is it? read more US President Donald Trump delivered remarks on tariffs, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. A federal appeals court reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs. File image/Reuters On, then off, and now back on. No, we aren't talking about a complicated relationship but about Donald Trump's tariffs — which, on Wednesday (May 28), were blocked by a US court, only for them to be reinstated a day later after a federal appeals court restored the ability to impose the levies. On Thursday (May 29), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court's ruling to consider the government's appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This means that Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs , which he had initially announced on April 2, are back on — bringing with them confusion and uncertainty. We try to decipher and decode what's going on in this Trump tariff war and what can we expect next in this saga. US court blocks Trump's tariffs On Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled that US President Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs and blocked them. The ruling from the three-judge panel at the New York-based court came after several lawsuits arguing Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country's trade policy dependent on his whims. With this ruling, Trump's Liberation Day tariffs — in which the US president levied tariffs as high as 50 per cent on trading partners — were paused, much to the ire of the White House. The ruling also applied to tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China over their alleged roles in allowing an influx of drugs into the United States. Later, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told a press briefing: 'America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.' A person walks past the The United States Court of International Trade in lower Manhattan in New York City. In a ruling that surprised many, the Manhattan-based trade court ruled in an opinion by a three-judge panel that a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant President Donald Trump 'unbounded' authority to impose the worldwide and retaliatory tariffs he has recently issued by executive order. AFP Trump gets reprieve from appeals court Shortly after the trade court blocked Trump's tariffs, the administration appealed the decision in the United States Court of Appeals. The Trump administration said the decision issued by the trade court a day earlier had improperly second-guessed the president and threatened to unravel months of hard-fought trade negotiations. 'The political branches, not courts, make foreign policy and chart economic policy,' it said in the filing. And just 24 hours after the trade court had paused the tariffs, the appeals court granted a temporary reprieve to Trump, allowing for tariffs to be levied for now while the case is litigated. The next hearing is on June 5. National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett told Fox News the administration is 'very pleased with the ruling,' dubbing it a victory. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As Bloomberg reported this shows just how central tariffs are to Trump's economic vision. A Tariff Free sign at an automobile dealership in Totowa, New Jersey. File image/AP Following the reprieve, Trump posted on Truth Social, 'The US Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'Trump?' What other reason could it be?' In the same post, after lambasting judges, the US president hailed his use of tariffs, saying that 'many trillions of dollars have already begun pouring into the USA from other countries, money that, without these tariffs, we would not be able to get'. Trump thinks of a Plan B for tariffs With the tariff policy now going down the legal route with some experts noting that the appeals court could eventually uphold the trade court's original decision to block Trump's sweeping tariffs, the White House is devising new ways to continue his tariff agenda. In fact, Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro told reporters: 'You can assume that even if we lose [in court], we will do it [tariffs] another way.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Many speculate that the Trump administration is mulling the use of a never-before-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to continue with the levies. This would allow for tariffs of up to 15 per cent for 150 days. This would then buy time for Trump to devise individualised tariffs for each major trading partner under a different provision of the same law, used to counter unfair foreign trade practices, according to the Wall Street Journal. The other option is Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930, which allows the administration to impose tariffs of up to 50 per cent on countries that discriminate against the United States. When asked about the same on Bloomberg TV, Navarro said, 'Those are the kinds of thoughts' the economic team is considering. He further indicated that the administration could use the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which has a provision that allows for tariffs on nations that discriminate against America. The US could also expand the use of tariffs imposed citing national-security concerns. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, these plans are not without risks. Everett Eissenstat, who served as deputy director of the National Economic Council in Trump's first term, told the Wall Street Journal, 'The administration could quickly turn to other tariff authorities, but doing so while the ruling is under judicial review could be seen as a lack of confidence in the final decision.' Trade advisor to US President Donald Trump Peter Navarro speaks to members of the media on the North Lawn of the White House. AFP Turmoil for economy Whatever the situation, it is bound to be chaotic and introduce uncertainty for the US economy. The court process 'introduces greater ambiguity around the future direction of US trade policy,' especially because the appeal is ongoing, said EY chief economist Gregory Daco to AFP. 'This legal development amplifies longer-lasting uncertainty for businesses navigating cross-border supply chains,' he added in a note. KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk also echoed similar views. 'The fate of the economy remains precarious even if we avert a recession,' she said on social media. With inputs from agencies
