Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

Raj HC: Procedural Safeguards Provided by Statute Must be Followed Strictly - (24 Jul 2023)

CIVIL

Rajasthan High Court while quashing interception orders for phone tapping of a private individual issued by authorities in the state in 2020-2021, observed that when the statute provides procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary infringement of the rights to privacy, it must be strictly followed.

Tags : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT   PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS   INTERCEPTION ORDERS   PHONE TAPPING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved