PLANNING A BUSINESS TRIP OR A VACATION STAY AT HOTELS? KNOW YOUR RIGHTS - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

PLANNING A BUSINESS TRIP OR A VACATION STAY AT HOTELS? KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

On a fundamental level, the hospitality business has a simple practice: As is frequently said, it adds up to placing heads in beds. In any case, managing to find the heads to be placed in the beds is a complex task and requires the organisations to discover a lot of data about their guests. Collecting and handling that data provides business opportunities but also adds up commitments, quite possibly the most essential of which is guaranteeing privacy and personal data protection.

Rasveen Kaur Kapoor

Published

on

The modern hospitality industry is confronting another test: dealing with the commitment to secure the visitor’s privacy during his/her visit in the hotel. This commitment emerges the second when the visitor goes into an agreement with the hotel after checking in. Hotel guests enter into a contract with the hotels upon their visit this entitles the hotels to process their information. Hotels can voluntarily offer certain rights to the guests pertaining to their own personal information. This can be outlined to include the right to access information, right to restriction on processing right to object, right to rectify information, right to erasure, etc.

A recent report from Salesforce shows that clients have limited trust in how organizations handle their information. 59% believe their personal information is vulnerable to a security breach, and 54% don’t believe that companies have their best interests in mind. Nonetheless, a similar report likewise showed that giving clients control of what information is gathered, being straightforward about how information is utilized, keeping information secure, and acquiring express client agree to utilize information were all ways organizations could improve that degree of trust. Survey respondents additionally suggest that they were more likely to be loyal, would recommend the company, spend more money, and share their experiences in the event that they trusted the organization.

TYPES OF PERSONAL DATA COLLECTED

The type of personal data collected is a subjective approach and varies from one hotel to another. Following is a list of generally collected personal data when you make a hotel booking:

• Personal Information (name, DoB, marital status, name of spouse, residential address, contact information, photographs);

• Passport details and visa details;

• Identification proof/ Address proof (PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Passport, driving license);

• Guest Stay information (Number of visits in the hotel, date of arrival and departure, any special requests made, services availed, goods purchased);

• Payment details (Credit/Debit Card Information);

• Loyalty Membership (Account details, passwords etc.);

• Information collected through CCTVs and

• Any other guest-specific information that has been willingly provided during the stay.

The Personal Data collected by the hotels is used to perform the contractual obligations and to comply with the legal obligations. Such information can be used for contract administration, business planning, bookkeeping and review, offering types of assistance, benefits, managing legitimate commitments, to forestall frauds, to ensure network and information security etc.

DATA PRIVACY LAWS

There is no particular enactment on data privacy in India. However, it is to be noted that the Supreme Court of India pronounced the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In its landmark judgement of Justice K S Puttaswamy and Another vs Union of India and Others (2018) the nine-judge bench unanimously held that “privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution”. Since most of the client information is saved electronically by the hotels, the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 are compulsory to maintain. The IT Rules protect both ‘personal data’ i.e. “any information that relates to a natural person, which, either directly or indirectly, in combination with other information available or likely to be available with a body corporate, is capable of identifying such person” and ‘sensitive personal data’, that is, certain particular data, like passwords, monetary data like financial balance or MasterCard or charge card or other instalment instrument subtleties, physical, physiological, and emotional well-being condition, and clinical data. Since every one of these client data is fit for distinguishing an individual, the hotel has an obligation to secure this information.

The IT Rules calls for outlining of a privacy policy of a body corporate which ought to be promptly accessible to the client and should be available at a conspicuous part of the website for the disposal of the customer.to be very much educated about the sort of personal data collected and the manner of usage of this data. This privacy policy should be published on the website of the hotel. Information providers are qualified to audit this data and add or redress it, if necessary. The IT Rules require certain safeguards if there ought to be an event of move or transmission of the information use of techniques concerning security practices and frameworks by the hotel. In the event that the hotel management wants to advance client information to subsidiaries and specialist co-ops, express assent of the client is compulsory for sharing information.

GDPR COMPLIANCES

The introduction of European Union’s (“EU”) guidelines on assurance of natural persons with respect to handling of individual information and free movement of such data (“GDPR”) has brought on certain significant implications on Indian organizations processing personal data of EU Residents. Essentially, since GDPR has extra-territorial application and applies to processing of personal data of EU residents even by entities situated outside EU, Indian entities who are acting as either a ‘controller’ (i.e. the person who determines the purposes and means of the processing of data) or a ‘processor’ (i.e. the person who processes the personal data on behalf of the controller), of personal data of persons of EU, in relation to offering of goods or services to such persons or monitoring their behaviour in so far as it takes place within EU, become subject to GDPR.  The concept of personal data has been defined in GDPR to refer to any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (i.e. “Data Subject”). An identifiable natural person s one who can be distinguished, straightforwardly or in a roundabout way, specifically by reference to an identifier like a name, an ID number, area information, an online identifier or to at least one variables explicit to the physical, physiological, hereditary, mental, financial, social or social character of that characteristic individual, and consequently all such data is considered as ‘personal data’ under the GDPR. For Indian companies dealing with such ‘personal data’ of EU residents, it then becomes imperative to implement the data protection requirements stipulated in GDPR within their systems. This requires a huge redesign and re-composing of their security approaches and legally binding contractual arrangements with EU counterparts/Data Subjects and their internal data conventions and frameworks to make them GDPR agreeable. It’s a hotelier’s duty to perceive that information has a place with the visitor and characterize a centre information assurance strategy in light of that. Here are some individual rights under the GDPR:

• The right to be informed – unmistakably diagram what information you are gathering, why and for how long.

• The right to access/modify data – offer admittance to individual information quickly, in a decipherable configuration, and alter on demand.

• The right to give/withdraw consent – this alludes to unequivocal assent. Offer a choice to pull out assent effectively and track how and when you gathered the information and assent.

• The right for data erasure – consider the person’s rights against public interest while accepting an erasure ask for and erase where suitable.

• The right to transfer data – give the client admittance to their own information to move on demand.

DATA BREACHES

Considering the expanded instances of hacking and need for visitor information by associations around the world, the data gathered by the hotels are under steady danger of going through a data breach. Insurance can be a solution to data breaches, yet its effectiveness is sketchy. Hotel Management Agreements are silent on the aspect of data breach. These agreements state that the ownership of the data is placed with the manager of the organization. However, the data is majorly collected by the employees of the organizations and not the manager and thus it has been a reason of conflict since there is no clear demarcation as regards the manager and the owner. Albeit the owners should bear the damages appended to the offence of data breach, notwithstanding, there are occasions of force majeure like third party acts, which cannot be controlled by any IT systems of the hotels.

PRIVACY POLICY OF HOTELS

Majorly a number of hotel organizations have specifically laid out a privacy policy which expresses all the rules and regulations in regards to the utilization of individual data of the guest. Having an all-around drafted privacy policy achieves contractual clarity and trust between the hotel and the guests.  Privacy policies additionally assist the hotels to discharge themselves from any unwanted future liability. The guests are expected to go through this arrangement to guarantee that their data won’t be abused in any capacity.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The hospitality industry is confronting both proceeding with difficulties securing the individual information of visitors, just as wrestling with the new legal landscape. Organizations need to perceive that while the preliminaries are incredible, achievement will make trust in the business’ most significant ware- its visitors. An exhaustive methodology can give organizations the possibility not exclusively to stand up to these issues, however make brand value in doing as such. On the other hand in addition to the fact that the hospitality industry must abide with the legal landscape and invest in good business practices, hotel guests ought to likewise be watchful in ensuring their own privacy. Customers ought to abstain from staying in hotels or giving out information to those organizations that do not have a privacy policy. The guests should provide only that information which is crucial from the hotel’s perspective to ensure a legitimate stay.

From the viewpoint of cybercriminals, hospitality seems to offer an ideal objective vector for directing criminal offences such as identity theft and credit card fraud because of the presence of numerous data sets and gadgets containing both  “Guest Personally Identifiable Information” and monetary data. This data can be utilized in skewer phishing plans, sold on with a huge quantum, or possibly used to make clone cards when solid encryption isn’t set up to ensure the financial information. With a full comprehension of the primary information security threats and some best practices for mitigating those risks, the hospitality industry is better positioned to carry out a thorough data security methodology that involves the essential techniques, cycles, and individuals to improve cybersecurity.

A number of hotel organisations have specifically laid out a privacy policy which expresses all the rules and regulations in regards to the utilisation of individual data of the guest. Having an all-around drafted privacy policy achieves contractual clarity and trust between the hotel and the guests. Privacy policies additionally assist the hotels to discharge themselves from any unwanted future liability. The guests are expected to go through this arrangement to guarantee that their data won’t be abused in any capacity.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

GAUHATI HIGH COURT QUASHES NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST GRAM PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT CITING PARTICIPATION OF MEMBER DISQUALIFIED FOR HAVING THREE CHILDREN

Published

on

The Gauhati High Court in the case Jugitawali Pawe v State of Assam and 15 ors observed and quashed a resolution expressing no-confidence in the petitioner – the President of a Gram Panchayat, as a result of which she as removed from office. It was stated that it is as per the citing no compliance with Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, reading with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995.

It was preferred by the petitioner to the materials available on record to argue that one of the members of the Gaon Panchayat, the respondent. The respondent voted against the petitioner and had given birth to her third child the previous year. Moreover, by virtue of Section 111(2)(a) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, reading with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, the petitioner stood automatically disqualified on the date of voting. Following, which her vote was taken by passing No-confidence motion.

It was prayed by the petitioner in the plea for setting aside the impugned resolution and for issuance of a direction to restore his client back in the office. Thereafter, to initiate fresh proceedings, liberty should be granted to the respondent, following the due process.

It was agreed by the Counsel representing for the respondent that the said member of the panchayat had been disqualified but retained on the ground that the disqualification would have no bearing on the petitioner’s case, as the impugned resolution was passed before the declaration of petitioner disqualification.

In the present case, It was noticed by Justice Suman Shyam the member had voted against the petitioner and without her vote. The petitioner would not have been ousted from office. Justice Shyam also found no dispute about the fact that the member had incurred disqualification under the law prior the date of adoption of the impugned resolution. Justice Shyam found it unnecessary to delve into other aspects of the matter which includes the procedural formalities for declaring the member a disqualified candidate.

It is observed that the impugned resolution was declared to be vitiated and liable to be set aside. Further, the Court restored the petitioner to the office of the President of the Bongalmara Gaon Panchayat with immediate effect and it was stated by the court that the order will not stand in the way should the authorities or any member of the Gaon Panchayat propose a fresh motion of “no-confidence” against the petitioner and the due process of law needs to be followed.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

Halt DDA’s demolition action against jhuggis in Nizamuddin’s Gyaspur area, orders Delhi High Court

As per the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, the residents who can establish their residence prior to 01.01.2015 are eligible for rehabilitation under the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015.

Published

on

plea in Delhi High Court seeking repatriation of 56 pregnant nurses

The Delhi High Court in the case Manoj Gupta & Ors. v. DDA & Ors observed and has ordered status quo on the Delhi Development Authority’s proposal to demolish jhuggi clusters in city’s Gyaspur area in Hazrat Nizamuddin. The vacation bench comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed in the petition filled by the residents and the court granted an interim relief.

It was ordered by the court status quo till July 11, the next date of hearing.

The bench orally remarked that a ten-day delay in demolition won’t make a difference but if today it is demolished and later, we come to know that they were entitled, who’s going to… the bench will consider it on July 11, 2022 but in the Meanwhile, some protections are entitled them. Adding this, Status quo be maintained. If since 1995, they have been there, heavens won’t come down if for 10 more days they are protected.

In the plea the petitioner stated that the T-Huts settlement in the area, which was stated by the authorities to vacate. It has been in existence for almost two decades and compromise of 32 jhuggis or households.

In the plea it was alleged that the bulldozers have been parked around the camp and a DDA official has orally asked them to vacate the area and it is noted that till date no proper notice have been sent to them nor has DDA conducted any survey of the area.

Furthermore, the DDA did not provide any alternate arrangement for their rehabilitation which resulted in extreme distress among the residents.

Moreover, it was admitted by the petitioner that the land in question belongs to DDA and they may seek that status-quo to be maintained at the site. It was urged that the residents should not be physically dispose or evicted from the demolition site until the survey is conducted and rehabilitation is provided to the residents as per the DUSIB policy of 2015.

As per the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board. The residents who can establish their residence prior to 01.01.2015 are eligible for rehabilitation under the JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015.

It is observed that in the case Ajay Maken v. Union of India, Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision and the High Court decision in the case Sudama Singh & Ors. v. Government of Delhi & Anr, it was held in the case that that removal of jhuggis without ensuring relocation would amount of gross violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, it was held that the agencies conducting the demolitions ought to conduct survey before undertaking any demolition.

It is submitted that these observations would apply across the board, in the entire NCT of Delhi.

Advocates Vrinda Bhandari, Shiyaz Razaq, Kaoliangpou Kamei, Jepi Y Chisho and Paul Kumar Kalai, represented the petitioner.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

TELANGANA HIGH COURT: PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE ARBITRATOR WOULD NOT BE THE SEAT OF ARBITRATION

Published

on

The High Court of Telangana in the case M/s S. Square Infra v. Garneni Chalapathi Rao observed and held that the place of residence of the arbitrator would not determine the seat of arbitration.

The Single bench comprising of Justice P. Sree Sudha observed and held that merely because an arbitrator residing in Hyderabad has been appointed, it does not mean that only the Courts at Hyderabad would have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters arising out of arbitration agreement.

Facts of the Case:

In the present case, after the dispute arouse between the parties, the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner for nomination an arbitrator who is residing in Hyderabad. To its said notice, petitioner replied and declined the appointment of the arbitrator for the reason that there was no dispute which required the appointment of an arbitrator.

A suit was filled by the respondent before the VII Additional District Judge Sangareddy, seeking for relief of permanent injunction. An application was filled by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and the parties referred to the arbitration.

An application was filled by the respondent under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act before the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, Subsequently, an application was filled by the petitioner for transferring the application from the Court at Sangareddy to Court at Hyderabad.

Contentions made by Parties:

On the following grounds, the petitioner sought the transfer of application.

An arbitrator residing in Hyderabad was nominated to respondent. However, only the courts in Hyderabad would have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters arising out of the arbitration.

It was stated that the nomination of an arbitrator residing in Hyderabad amounted to designating Hyderabad as the Seat of Arbitration.

On the following grounds, the respondent countered the submissions of the petitioner:

An application was filled by the petitioner under Section 8 of the A&C Act before the Court at Sangareddy. However, in terms of Section 42 of the A&C Act, only the court at Sangareddy would have the jurisdiction to decide all the matters arising out of arbitration.

Court Analysis:

The Court held that the seat of arbitration would not be decide by the place of residence of the arbitrator.

The argument of the petitioner was rejected by the court that since the respondent had initially nominated an arbitrator residing in Hyderabad, the Hyderabad Court would have the jurisdiction.

The court stated that merely because a party has nominated an arbitrator who resides in Hyderabad, the same would not designate Hyderabad as the Seat of arbitration in absence of any designation of the seat under the arbitration agreement.

It was further stated by the court that the application filled by the petitioner filled under Section 8 application before the Court at Sangareddy consequent to which the parties were referred to arbitration. Therefore, the Court would have the jurisdiction, in terms of Section 42 of the A&C Act.

The Transfer petition was dismissed by the Court.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

DELHI HIGH COURT REMANDS IN THE MATTER BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER SETTING ASIDE: JUST 3 DAYS’ TIME GRANTED TO RESPOND TO THE INCOME TAX NOTICE

Published

on

plea in Delhi High Court seeking repatriation of 56 pregnant nurses

The Delhi High Court in the case Shubham Thakral Vs ITO, the Delhi bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days’ time was granted to respond to the income tax notice.

In the present case, the petitioner/assessee assailed the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018–19.

It was contended by the assessee that only three days’ time was granted to the assessee to respond, as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. However, despite of the fact that the annexure attached to the notice gave the petitioner eight days to respond, the e-filing submission portal was closed earlier, in violation of Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act.

Furthermore, the petitioner relied on the decision of Delhi High Court, in the case of Shri Sai Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd versus ITO, the Delhi High Court in the case held that under Section 148A (b), a minimum time of seven days has to be granted to the assessee to file its reply to the show cause notice.

No objections were raised by the department/respondent to the matter being returned to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the court set aside the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing officer was directed by the court to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with the law after considering the reply of the petitioner, which was directed to be filed within a week.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT: ADVOCATES SHOULDN’T ADVISE CLIENTS TO REAGITATE MATTERS IF THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT ON FACE OF RECORD

Published

on

The Allahabad High Court in the case Malhan and 17 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another observed and stated that an advocate should be given such a piece of advice when there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor was there any reason why the matter be re-agitated it was finally decided.

The bench comprising of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Vivek Varma observed while dealing with the civil review application wherein the bench observed the concerned advised his client to make a chance by filling the instant review application after a period of six year.

In the present case, a civil review petition was filled along with the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963., the application was filled for seeking condonation of delay in filling the application, the application was filled with a delay of six years i.e., 1900 days.

It was stated by the applicant that the review application could not be filled due to the blockage of public transportation on account of the COVID-19 guidelines.

Moreover, the court observed that the appeals were disposed of by the Apex Court in the year 2016 and only in 2020-2021, the pandemic struck India and furthermore, it cannot be said that due to the COVID guidelines the public transportation was blocked and however, the applicant could not come to Allahabad Court to file review.

Further, it was stated that the court asked the counsel for the review applicants to explain the delay in filling the review application, to which the council gave a strange reply that the counsel had advised the clients that they must take a chance by filling this review application after a period of six years.

Following this, the Court observed:

The court noted that an advocate should not give such an advice when there is no error apparent on the face of record nor was there any other reason that when the matter was finally decided, why the matter be re-agitated.

It was stated that the court has no reason to condone the delay of six years as the same was not explained as to why this review application is filed after such an inordinate delay.

The Court opined that the lapse in approaching the court within the time is understandable but a total inaction for long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of suiter, this would add to his negligence and the relevant factor going against him.

The court observed that careless and reckless is shown by the review applicant in approaching the court and due to the condemnation of delay in the application with a token cost of Rs.10,000/, the court dismissed the application.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

SUPREME COURT CRITICISES HIGH COURT: POSTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL PLEA AFTER TWO MONTHS CAN’T BE APPRECIATED

Published

on

The Supreme Court in the case Sanjay versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & ANR observed and stated that in the case where personal liberty is involved, the court is expected to pass orders at the earliest while taking into account the merits of the matter in one way or other. Further, the top court observed that posting of an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be appreciated by the court.

The bench comprising of Justice C. T. Ravikumar and the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a June 2 SLP against the Delhi High Court in a petition filed under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for seeking anticipatory bail in a 2022 FIR, a notice is issued. It was stated that the learned APP for the state is present and accepts the notice and seeks time to file status report. The High Court in the impugned order stated that Let the status report be filed by the state prior to the next date with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter is to be list on 31.08.2022.

It was noted by the bench comprising of Justice Ravikumar and the Justice Dhulia that in the captioned Special Leave Petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the application for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner, being Crl. M.A. No. 11480 of 2022 in Bail Application No. 1751 of 2022 without granting any interim protection, was posted to 31.08.2022. on 24.05.2022, the bail application was moved on.

However, the bench asserted that the bench is of the considered view that in a matter involving personal liberty, the Court is expected to to pass orders at the earliest while taking into account the merits of the matter in one way or other.

It was declared by the bench that at any rate posting an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be appreciated by the court.

Further, the bench requested to the High Court to dispose off the application for anticipatory bail on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks after reopening of the Court. Adding to it, the bench stated that if the main application could not be disposed off, for any reason, within the stipulated time, relief sought for in the interlocutory and on and on its own merits, the application shall be considered.

While disposing of the SLP, the bench directed in its order that we grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner herein, Till such time.

Continue Reading

Trending