https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783838 In an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the HC considered whether a suit seeking injunctions and damages, insofar as premised on the "right to be forgotten," was barred by limitation. Holding that the plaint asserted distinct causes including privacy, dignity, and the right to be forgotten apart from defamation damages, and that the suit was filed soon after criminal proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favour, the HC rejected limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, allowing the suit to proceed. On interim relief, the HC held the trial court's Article 19(1)(a)/Article 21 proportionality balancing was narrowly tailored to post-exoneration circulation of specific articles, and the balance of convenience favoured preventing irreparable reputational harm; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783838 In an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the HC considered whether a suit seeking injunctions and damages, insofar as premised on the "right to be forgotten," was barred by limitation. Holding that the plaint asserted distinct causes including privacy, dignity, and the right to be forgotten apart from defamation damages, and that the suit was filed soon after criminal proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favour, the HC rejected limitation under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, allowing the suit to proceed. On interim relief, the HC held the trial court's Article 19(1)(a)/Article 21 proportionality balancing was narrowly tailored to post-exoneration circulation of specific articles, and the balance of convenience favoured preventing irreparable reputational harm; the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783838