Top Story

Okay, the user wants me to rewrite the title “NSE Q1 Results: Profit rises 14% YoY to Rs 2,924 crore, but revenue drops 11%” in a News Style and SEO-focused way. Let me start by understanding what they need. First, News Style titles need to be catchy, concise, and highlight the key points. They usually have a headline that grabs attention and a subhead that provides more details. But the user mentioned only returning a title, so maybe just the main headline. However, sometimes in SEO titles, you have a primary title with a separator like a pipe or hyphen and additional keywords. Let me check their example again. The original title is “NSE Q1 Results: Profit rises 14% YoY to Rs 2,924 crore, but revenue drops 11%”. The user wants it rewritten for News Style and SEO. So combining both aspects. For SEO, keywords are important: “NSE”, “Q1 Results”, “Profit”, “Revenue”, percentages. Also, the structure might be something like “NSE Q1 Earnings: Profit Jumps 14% YoY Amid Revenue Decline”. But maybe “Earnings” is more common in SEO than “Results”. Also, “Rs 2,924 crore” is specific, but maybe converting that into USD or a more globally recognized term? No, the user probably wants the Indian context, so rupees are okay. In news style, they often use active verbs. “Rises” could become “Surges” or “Jumps” for the positive profit growth. Then, the negative revenue drop should be mentioned but balanced. The word “but” might be replaced with “Despite” or “As”. So, something like “NSE Q1 Earnings: Profit Surges 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Crore Despite 11% Revenue Decline”. Let me check if that’s within the length for SEO titles (usually under 60 characters). Let me count: “NSE Q1 Earnings: Profit Surges 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Crore Despite 11% Revenue Decline” – that’s probably a bit long, but maybe the user can adjust. Alternatively, shorten “Earnings” to “Results” or remove “Earnings”. Wait, the original uses “Results”. Maybe “NSE Q1 Results: Profit Jumps 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Crore as Revenue Falls 11%”. That includes both metrics with active verbs and keyword phrases. Also, using “as” connects the two parts smoothly. I should ensure numerals are correct and SEO-friendly. Using a hyphen or colon to separate clauses. Maybe “NSE Q1 Results Report: Profit Increases 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Crore, Revenue Contracts by 11%”. “Contracts” sounds more formal and newsy. But the user wants only the title. Let me make sure to include both profit and revenue changes, the YoY reference, and the numbers. Maybe “NSE Q1 Profit Surges 14% to ₹2,924 Crore Despite 11% Revenue Dip – Earnings Analysis”. Wait, but the user said “short NSE Q1”, so perhaps omitting “Analysis” for brevity. Also, “dip” might be better than “drop” in SEO. Putting it all together, maybe “NSE Q1 Results: Profit Grows 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Crore with 11% Revenue Decline”. That’s the original structure but with more vigorous verbs. Alternatively, “NYSE-listed NSE Sees 14% Profit Rise in Q1; Revenue Drops 11%” but the user mentioned “NSE” which is the National Stock Exchange of India, so maybe “NSE Q1 Earnings: Profit Jumps 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Cr, Revenue Falls 11%”. Wait, the user specified to use only the returned title. Also, “Crore” is Indian English, so using Cr as abbreviation might be okay for brevity. Check character count. Need to ensure that the most important keywords are at the beginning for SEO. Best attempt would be: “NSE Q1 Profit Rises 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Crore as Revenue Drops 11%”. That includes both metrics, active verbs, keywords, and the structure is clear. Maybe “Earnings” instead of “Profit” if that’s more common in headlines. Alternatively, “NSE Q1 Results: Profit Surges 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Cr with 11% Revenue Reduction – Key Takeaways”. But the user said short, so maybe trim. Alternatively, “NSE Q1: Profit Up 14% YoY ₹2,924 Cr, Revenue Down 11%”. The colon and comma placement, omitting words for conciseness. But in SEO titles, sometimes full words are better. Also, the “YoY” is important for SEO. Finalizing: “NSE Q1 Earnings: Profit Surges 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Crore Despite 11% Revenue Decline” – this includes both metrics, active verbs like “surges” and “decline”, the numbers with currency, and the structure is SEO-friendly with keywords at the front. “NSE Q1 Profit Jumps 14% YoY to ₹2,924 Cr Amid 11% Revenue Fall: Earnings Highlights” This version prioritizes brevity, includes key financial metrics (Profit, Revenue, YoY, ₹2,924 Cr), uses active verbs (“Jumps,” “Amid”), and integrates SEO terms (Earnings Highlights). The pipe symbol (|) ensures clarity in separating core data from context.

THE PRIME NEWS NETWORK
THE PRIME NEWS NETWORK

Contents
NSE Consolidated Net Profit Rises 14% YoY in Q1 FY26 Despite Revenue DipRevenue TrendsEBITDA and Cost ManagementStandalone Financials and Tax ContributionsMarket Performance HighlightsGlobal Exchange LeadershipLive Events

NSE Consolidated Net Profit Rises 14% YoY in Q1 FY26 Despite Revenue Dip

Driven by transaction fee growth and cost optimization, the National Stock Exchange (NSE) recorded a **consolidated net profit of ₹2,924 crore** in the first quarter of fiscal year 2025-26 (Q1 FY26), marking a 14% year-over-year (YoY) increase, according to data released on Tuesday.

Total revenue from operations for the period fell 11% YoY to ₹4,032 crore but saw a 7% sequential growth. This uptick was attributed to higher transaction charges, signaling improved market activity despite broader economic pressures.

EBITDA and Cost Management

Operating EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) inched up 1% YoY to ₹3,130 crore. On a quarterly basis, EBITDA surged 12%, with operating margins expanding to 78% from the prior quarter’s 74%. Total expenditure dropped 6% quarter-over-quarter (QoQ) to ₹1,053 crore, largely due to reduced regulatory fees and other operational costs.

Standalone Financials and Tax Contributions

On a standalone basis, NSE’s net profit stood at ₹2,409 crore—a 40% decline from Q1 FY25. This drop stems from a high profit base in the previous quarter, which included exceptional dividend income. Excluding one-time factors, normalized profit before tax increased 13% QoQ to ₹3,141 crore.

The exchange contributed ₹14,331 crore to the government treasury during the quarter, including ₹12,338 crore in Securities Transaction Tax (STT) and Commodities Transaction Tax (CTT) collections.

Market Performance Highlights

  • Average Daily Traded Volumes (ADTV) in the cash market climbed 14% QoQ to ₹1.08 lakh crore
  • Equity futures volumes rose 5% QoQ, while options saw a 9% increase

The NSE maintained dominant market shares exceeding 94% across all segments.

Global Exchange Leadership

The National Stock Exchange reaffirmed its position as the world’s largest derivatives exchange by trading volume and the second-largest equity exchange globally by trade count, cementing its role as India’s leading financial market infrastructure platform.

Source link

Share This Article
Previous Article Okay, the user wants me to rewrite the title “Madras HC Judge attacks advocate over caste-bias allegations” into a News Style and SEO-focused version. Let me start by understanding the key elements here. The main points are: Madras High Court Judge, caste-bias, the action taken against an advocate, and the controversy. First, for a news style title, I need to be concise but attention-grabbing. Maybe start with the location and the authority figure, then the issue. So “Madras High Court Judge Criticized for Caste-Bias Remarks Against Advocate: Controversy Erupts” – criticism sounds immediate. Then SEO-wise, keywords are important. Words like “Madras High Court,” “caste-bias,” “advocate,” “controversy” should be included. The colon structure can help separate the main headline from the explanatory clause. Wait, should I use “Attacks” or “Remarks”? “Attacks” might be stronger, but maybe the original uses that word. The user might prefer a more neutral term. Alternatively, “Over Caste-Bias Allegations” as part of the title. Maybe “Madras High Court Judge Faces Criticism for Alleged Caste-Biased Remarks Toward Advocate” – using “Alleged” could add nuance, but if the original doesn’t specify, maybe avoid. Also, SEO needs high-traffic keywords. Perhaps including “controversy” is good for SEO. Let me check synonyms for “attacks” – maybe “Rebukes” or “Slams,” but “attacks” is direct. Another structure: “Controversy at Madras HC as Judge Criticized for Caste-Bias Allegations Against Advocate” – but maybe not as catchy. Original title’s structure is Judge attacks advocate… in news style, it’s often “Subject Faces [Reaction] Over [Issue]”. But user wants only the rewritten title returned. Also, the length should be short. Maybe abbreviate “allegations” to “accusations”? Hmm. Let me go with the first idea. Wait, the user specified “News Style & SEO Focused Only return title in short”. So the title needs to be both journalistic and optimized for search. Including exact phrases like “Madras High Court Judge” and “caste-bias allegations” might be better. Let me try: “Madras HC Judge Criticized After Caste-Bias Allegation Remarks Spark Outrage (2024)”. Adding the year could help SEO for recency. But if the event is recent and the current year is 2024, this works. The colon can be replaced with a comma for SEO, or maybe keep the colon. News sites often use em dashes and colons. “Madras HC Judge Slams Advocate Over Caste-Bias Allegations, Triggering Controversy”. But the user said only use the format with colon. Maybe: “Madras High Court Judge Rebukes Advocate Over Caste-Bias Allegations: Public Uproar Ensues”. Hmm, “public uproar” is a good keyword. But need to check if “attack” was the original term. “Attack” might imply direct action, so “slams” could be a synonym. Need to ensure accuracy. Alternatively, “Madras HC Judge Faces Backlash for Caste-Bias Remarks During Advocate’s Hearing” – mentions backlash and the context. However, including “hearing” might not add necessary info. Keep it concise. Maybe the best approach is to use the original verbs but structure it into a headline with a hook. So combining the key elements: Madras HC Judge’s alleged caste-bias comments against advocate ignite controversy. For SEO, exact match phrases like “caste-bias allegations” and “Madras High Court” are important. Let me finalize: “Madras High Court Judge Sparks Outrage with Caste-Bias Allegation Comments Toward Advocate”. But the user wants it short. Maybe trim “Toward Advocate” to “Against Advocate”. The original example from earlier: “Madras High Court Judge Criticized for Caste-Basis Remarks Against Advocate: Controversy Erupts” – maybe “Controversy Erupts” is better. Also, need to check for keyword density. The title should have the main keywords early on. So leading with “Madras High Court Judge” is good. I think the first version I thought of would work. Let me make sure it’s under the character limit typically for SEO titles, which is around 60 characters. Let me count: “Madras HC Judge Criticized for Caste-Bias Allegations Against Advocate: Controversy Erupts” – that’s 113 characters. Maybe too long. Shorten to “Madras HC Judge’s Caste-Bias Alleged Attack on Advocate Triggers Outrage” – that’s 76. Still okay. Or “Madras HC Judge Slams Advocate Over Caste-Bias Claims, Sparks Backlash” – 66 characters. That’s better and includes strong keywords. But does it lose the legal context? Maybe “Case Dismissal Overcasted” – no. The user wants “attack” mentioned. Original title says “attacks” so “slams” might not capture it. Maybe “Madras HC Judge Faces Scrutiny Over Caste-Bias Allegations Against Advocate”. Hmm, but does it imply the judge is under scrutiny for the allegations, or that the allegations are against the judge? Could be confusing. Alternatively, “Advocate Accuses Madras HC Judge of Caste-Bias During Court Proceedings”. But the user’s original title indicates the judge is attacking the advocate. Wait, maybe the original title is that the judge made caste-bias allegations against the advocate. Wait, the original is ambiguous. “attacking advocate over caste-bias allegations” – the judge is attacking someone who made caste-bias allegations. Or the judge is accused of caste bias by the advocate? The original title might need clarification, but the user wants a rewrite, not a disambiguation. So perhaps proceed as is. Final answer: “Madras High Court Judge Criticized Over Caste-Bias Allegations Against Advocate: Legal Outrage Spreads” – but user probably wants brevity. Maybe better to use “Madras HC Judge’s Caste-Bias Remarks Against Advocate Spark Legal Controversy”. That’s shorter and uses keywords. Madras HC Judge Slams Advocate with Caste-Bias Allegations, Ignites Legal Firestorm
Next Article Okay, the user wants a rewritten title in a news style that’s also SEO-focused. Let me break down the original title first: “Nimisha Priya case: Deleted, but not denied – the truth behind Kanthapuram’s reprieve claim.” Hmm, “Deleted, but not denied” is a bit confusing. Maybe it refers to a statement that was deleted but the claim stands? The SEO part needs keywords like case name, key figures involved. Words like “truth” and “claim” are there but maybe I can make it more direct. Kanthapurum’s reprieve claim – reprieve here probably means that there’s a claim he got a break or exoneration. Maybe “Reprieve Revealed” or “Under Scrutiny” would be better for SEO. In news titles, they often use colon and dashes. Maybe structure it as [Subject]: [Details] – [What’s New]. Also, current events titles on Google tend to use strong verbs and clarity. Words like “exposed,” “truth,” “claim,” “case” are good keywords. So possible combinations: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed” – that’s concise, includes keywords, and has a newsy feel. Alternatively, “Nimisha Priya Case: Truth Behind Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Emerges” but “emerges” might not be as catchy. Wait, the original uses “Deleted, but not denied.” Maybe “Deleted, Not Denied” is a keyword here, but the user said to ignore irrelevant search results and clarify if needed. Since I don’t have context on who Kanthapurum is, maybe the name is important. Should I check if Kanthapurum is the correct spelling? But the user specified to not use search results unless relevant, and to ask follow-up if needed. Wait, the user said “ignore all search results that are not relevant to the user’s question” which they don’t have here. Since the original title mentions Kanthapuram’s reprieve claim, I’ll stick with that. SEO-focused titles need to be around 50-60 characters but also include important keywords. Let’s ensure the case name and the key figure are in the title. “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed” is 70 characters. Maybe “Deleted” isn’t adding much if the context isn’t there. The user might have specific reasons for including ‘deleted’ but if the assistant should ignore irrelevant search results and instead clarify, but since the user is asking for a rewrite maybe they want it more standard. Alternatively, “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Stands Despite Deletion” but that might be longer. Or “Nimisha Priya Case: Deleted Reprieve Claim Not Denied – Inside Scoop.” Wait, the assistant shouldn’t add irrelevant info. Since the user didn’t explain the deletion, maybe keep that as per the original. But the user said to “rewrite the title”, so they do want the deletion point included. But how to frame it clearly. Original title suggests that the reprieve claim was deleted but not denied. Maybe the news angle is that even though a statement or evidence was deleted, the reprieve still holds. So perhaps “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Not Denied After Deletion” but that’s a bit wordy. Or “Nimisha Priya Case: Deletion, Not Denial – Unraveling Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim.” That flows better. Wait, the user instruction says “Only return title” so no explanation. Also, the example they gave earlier in their own response was “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed” which includes the case name and the key elements. But the original had “Deleted, but not denied.” Maybe the user wants to keep the ‘deleted vs not denied’ angle. So how to integrate that. Possible title: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Deleted, But Not Denied, Here’s Why” but maybe for SEO, “Truth” is better. Alternatively, “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed – Deletion, Not Denial, Revealed.” Hmm. Alternatively, use em dashes to make it snappier: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Not Denied, Despite Deletion.” That’s concise but might not capture the essence. The original title uses “Deleted, but not denied” as a counterpoint, so the new title should maintain that juxtaposition. Maybe “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Deleted Yet Not Denied, What It Means.” But the user wants it short. So perhaps the best approach is to include the main elements: case name, Kanthapuram, reprieve claim, deleted vs denied, and make it engaging. “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Under Scrutiny – Deleted, Not Denied.” That includes SEO words like under scrutiny, deleted, not denied, and the key terms. It’s 114 characters, maybe a bit long, but it’s more informative. Alternatively, shorter: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Survives Despite Deletion.” But ‘survives’ might not be accurate. The original says ‘truth’ behind the claim. So maybe “Nimisha Priya Case: Truth Behind Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim After Deletion Revealed.” That’s longer but includes ‘truth’, which the user emphasized. Wait, the user’s original title is “Deleted, but not denied – the truth behind Kanthapuram’s reprieve claim.” So the truth is about why the claim wasn’t denied even after deletion. The news style would require a concise title with the main subject first. SEO would want keywords like case, reprieve claim, name. Combining them: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Truth Revealed After Deletion,” but ‘truth revealed’ is a bit vague. Maybe “Exposed” instead of ‘revealed’. Finalizing: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed – Deletion, Not Denial.” That’s concise and includes the key points. Or “Nimisha Priya Case: Deletion, Not Denial – The Real Story Behind Kanthapuram’s Reprieve.” Hmm, maybe that’s better structured as per news style, starting with the case name, then the angle, then the focus. I think the example given by the assistant in the previous message was effective, so following that, the title should be “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed” but that doesn’t mention the deletion angle. Since the user wants that included, perhaps adjust to include both the deletion and the reprieve. Alternatively: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Persists Despite Deletion Allegations” – but ‘persists’ and ‘allegations’ might imply it’s still ongoing, which might not be accurate. Wait, the user probably meant that the reprieve claim was deleted from a statement or document but Kanthapurum hasn’t denied it. So the key is ‘deleted but not denied.’ How to convey that in SEO terms. Maybe “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Not Denial Despite Deletion.” Or “Nimisha Priya Case: Deleted Reprieve Claim Not Denied by Kanthapurum – What’s Next?” That’s a bit long. Perhaps the best is to start with the case, then mention Kanthapuram and the reprieve, then the ‘what happened’ part. Since the user’s original title had a subtitle after the dash, maybe follow that structure but use colons for clarity. So final answer: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Under Fire – Deleted, But Not Denied” – using “Under Fire” adds urgency. Alternatively, “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Stands Despite Deletion, Here’s the Truth” but that’s too long. Wait, the user said the title should be “short”, so perhaps trimming down to essential keywords. “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram Reprieve Claim – Truth After Deletion” – shorter but less SEO-friendly. Alternatively: “Nimisha Priya Case: The Truth Behind Kanthapuram’s Unshaken Reprieve Claim” – but ‘unshaken’ might not relate to deletion. I think the optimal balance is “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed After Deletion, Not Denial” – but maybe that’s too many elements. In the end, considering SEO and brevity, perhaps the best is to include the main keywords and the twist. So combining ‘reprieve’, ‘exposed’, ‘truth’, ‘deletion’, ‘not denied’ where possible. Wait, the user’s example answer was “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed” – which excluded the ‘deleted, not denied’ part. But since the user asked to rewrite the original title which includes that, maybe the assistant needs to incorporate that. The original title has two parts: “Deleted, but not denied” followed by the explanation. In news style, they might structure it as a main title and then a subheading, but the user wants only the title. So perhaps “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Not Denied Despite Deletion Allegations.” But maybe even shorter: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Not Denied After Claim Deleted.” That’s concise, includes keywords, and the conflict. Alternatively, to make it more clickbait for SEO: “Nimisha Priya Scandal: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Uncovered – Deleted, But Not Denial!” But perhaps the user wants a more serious tone. Balancing all: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Unraveled – Deleted, Not Denied” But ‘unraveled’ might imply solved. Maybe “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram Refutes Denial, Reprieve Claim Deleted” No, that’s not accurate. Alternatively: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Survives Deletion Allegations.” Not sure. Another approach: “Deleted Reprieve Claim or Not? Nimisha Priya Case Sheds New Light on Kanthapuram’s Response” But the user wants the reprieve claim emphasized. Maybe the best is to use the structure from the example but add the deletion part if possible. However, the user might expect to keep both parts. Alternatively: “Nimisha Priya Case: Truth Behind Kanthapurum’s Undenied Reprieve Claim After Deletion” That’s 125 characters, which is a bit long but includes all elements. Alternatively, the assistant can check the character count. If the user wants it short, then focus on the main parts. Maybe the ‘deleted’ is not essential if it’s a minor point, but the user included it. Given the time and again, the best approach is to keep the example given by the assistant, which was “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Exposed” as that was the previous response. But wait, the user’s original title includes ‘deleted, but not denied.’ Maybe the assistant should include that. Wait, perhaps the user is referring to a legal case where a statement was deleted (like a document or a plea) but the reprieve claim remains. So the juxtaposition of deletion vs denial is key. To make it SEO, need to include the case name and the figure. Possible title: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Stands Post-Deletion” – but doesn’t mention denied. Alternatively: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram Reprieve – Deleted, But Not Denied” – that’s a bit more in line, uses the original phrasing, and includes keywords. Short, includes all elements. Maybe that’s the way. But the example given by the assistant in their response (before the user provided the current query) used “exposed”, which is a strong SEO term. So maybe combine both ideas: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Deleted, Not Denied, Now Exposed” But perhaps too many clauses. Final decision: Incorporate the ‘deleted not denied’ as part of the title using strong verbs and SEO terms. Maybe replace ‘the truth’ with ‘exposed’. Result: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Deleted, Not Denied, Here’s the Truth” But the user said only return the title, no explanation. So the correct rewritten title should be concise and include keywords. After considering all, the best is: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim Survives Amid Deletion, Not Denial” Or “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Deletion Doesn’t Signal Denial, Truth Emerges” Alternatively, shorter: “Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram Reprieve Claim – Not Denied Despite Deletion” Yes, that’s 78 characters, includes key parts, and is in news style. So I think that’s the answer. Nimisha Priya Case: Kanthapuram’s Reprieve Claim – Not Denied Despite Deletion
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Might Also Like

Warzone Talks: Mehbooba and Omar Seek Peace
Top Story

Warzone Talks: Mehbooba and Omar Seek Peace

Story Title: Mehbooba Mufti Calls for Permanent Ceasefire with Pakistan, Urges Humanitarian Aid for Kashmiri Civilians Arrested in 'Operation Sindoor'…

3 Min Read
Top Story

Ravichandran Ashwin Spotted in Hazardous River Bathing Zone; Locals Push for Safety Warning Board

Ravichandran Ashwin's Viral River Bathing Video Sparks Safety Alerts in Kanyakumari District | Prime News Network CHENNAI, June 19 –…

2 Min Read
Indian Astronaut's Mission Could Revolutionize Space Travel for Diabetics
Top Story

Indian Astronaut’s Mission Could Revolutionize Space Travel for Diabetics

Indian Astronaut Shubanshu Shukla to Conduct Diabetes Study on International Space Station Indian astronaut, Group Captain Shubanshu Shukla, who will…

5 Min Read

Access Denied to Researchers Requesting Facebook’s Price Model

Metro in Dino Box Office Collection Day 1: Sara Ali Khan and Aditya Roy Kapur Film Opens With ₹3 Crore,…

1 Min Read