Preliminary reassessment proceedings generally require statutory remedies unless jurisdiction is wholly absent or mandatory conditions are patently br...
Agricultural land classification requires cumulative factual indicators, while industrial-purpose land and absent agricultural use defeat reinvestment...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
