TABLE OF CYBER APPELLATE DECISIONS

  Case Name Citation Facts Issues Decision

Harish Kumar Vakaria v. Appeal No. 1/2009 Appeal against dismissal
India Infnaloline Ltd. of petition filed under Sec.
May 26,2010 43 of the IT Act. An online
demat account which was
opened by the Appellant
with the Respondent
which was applied in the
Hindu Undivided Family
(HUF) category but was
allotted in the Individual
category. Thereafter a Tribunal remanded the matter back
trade was affected in the
account. Subsequently the
Respondent suspended
the account for a period of
37 days to correct the
discrepancy in the
account, i.e. to change the
category from HUF to
Individual. The Appellant
claimed that due to the
unauthorized suspension
of the account the
Appellant suffered a loss.
(i) Whether the appeal was within time ?
(ii) Whether the appellant has suffered a loss
on account of the suspension of demat
account?
(iii) Whether necessary parties are represented
in order to decide the complaint ?
(i) Yes, within time. Delay if any is
condoned.
(ii) Remanded. The Appellate
Tribunal held that the Appellant
failed to lead any evidence on this
issue. It further held that the
Respondent merely limited itself to
the preliminary issues of
jurisdiction. Hence, the Appellate
to the Adjudicating Officer for
leading evidence.
(iii) No, the CAT holds that
necessary parties were not
impleaded in the complaint. After
which it observes after making
reference to the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure and
judgments of the Supreme Court
that the tribunal has the power to
direct the appellant to implead
parties. Going further the Tribunal
directs the Appellant to implead
CDSL, BSE and NSE as parties
before the Adjudicating Officer.

(iv) Whether there was any arbitration clause
and the matter was not liable to be adjudicated
under Section 43 of the Information
Technology Act ?
(iv) Remanded. The Appellate
Tribunal again remands this issue to
the Adjudicating Officer. It notes
that since evidence has to be lead in
the matter with regard to the
allegations of the Appellant, the
Adjudicating Officer will decide
whether as preliminary issue.

Aruna Kashinath Appeal No. 3/2009 The case concerned a (i) Whether the present appeal is maintainable (i) No, the Tribunal citing supreme
v. request for disabling without exhausting the alternative remedy of court judgment’s holds that it can
Gmail.com May 28,2010 access to an email account approaching the Controller of Certifying only hear appeals and not original
& Anr. of the name of the Authorities or the Adjudicating Officer actions. The tribunal is a creature of
Applicant which was appointed under the IT Act, 2000? statute and is created and limited by
hosted with the email section 57 which prescribes that it
services of the shall only hear appeals from the
Respondent. orders of the controller of certifying
authorities or the adjudicating
officer. The Tribunal also holds that
if it does possess any inherent
powers they do not stretch to

Table prepared for the blog post, “Another CAT” published at www.iltb.apargupta.com 1
 TABLE OF CYBER APPELLATE DECISIONS
 
entertaining original actions.

(ii) Whether the ingredients made in the appeal
amounted to an offence under the provisions of
the Information Technology Act?
(ii) No, The tribunal refuses to enter
judgment on this issue since it
involves a decision on merits and it
has held in issue (i) that it lacks
jurisdiction to hear the matter.

(iii) Relief (iii)Dismissed, with an opportunity

to the Appellant to file the complaint
with the Adjudicating Officer within
30 days of the Order.

Dr. Avinash Agnihotry Appeal No. 4/2009 The case concerned a (i) Whether the present appeal is maintainable (i) No, the Tribunal dismissing the
request for reliefs for without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal follows its reasoning in
v. May 28,2010 blocking an email which approaching the Controller of Certifying Appeal No. 3/2009. The Tribunal
was opened in the name of Authorities or the Adjudicating Officer notes that, “ Appellant has not
(1) Controller of Certifying the Appellant with the appointed under the IT Act, 2000. referred a single judgment where
Authorities email service of the statute provides a Forum for
Respondent No. 3. From filing a complaint and ignoring the
(2) Gmail.Com the purported email same the appeal can be preferred.
account the Appellant He has referred the judgment
(3) Google Inc. alleged that various regarding exercise of inherent
obnoxious, defamatory powers under Section 151 of the
and derogatory emails had Code of Civil Procedure or to prefer
been sent. It is unclear a writ petition under Article 226 of
from the Order as to how the Constitution of India. The
and on what ground aforesaid cases, therefore, are not
Respondent No. 1 was applicable in the present case as
arraigned as a party to the statutory appeal has been provided
action. The Appellant has under Section 57 of the Information
asked Respondent No. 1 to Technology Act against the order
investigate the various passed by the Controller of Certified
offences which have Authorities or order passed by the
allegedly occurred against concerned Adjudicating Officer.”
it. In my view the
controller does not (ii) Whether the offence is covered under the (ii) No, The tribunal refuses to enter
exercise such functions or provisions of the Information Technology Act. judgment on this issue since it
possess the power of involves a decision on merits and it
investigation till there is a has held in issue (i) that it lacks
Electronic Signature jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Certificate involves, which (iii) Relief.
is quite clearly absent in (iii) Dismissed, with an opportunity
the instant case. to the Appellant to file the complaint
with the Adjudicating Officer within
30 days of the Order.

Aruna Kashinath Appeal No. 5/2009 Curiously even this case The same set of issues are formed in this Dismissed. Expectedly even this
v. concerned the same Appeal as in Appeals Nos. 3 and 4. Appeal is dismissed on grounds of
May 28,2010 bundle of facts as in jurisdiction. The reasoning, legal

Table prepared for the blog post, “Another CAT” published at www.iltb.apargupta.com 2
 TABLE OF CYBER APPELLATE DECISIONS
(1) Controller of Certifying Appeal No. 3 and 4. The
Authorities same set of allegations was
leveled against the same
(2) Gmail.Com set of Defendants.
(3) Google Inc.
Dr. Avinash Agnihotry Appeal No. 6/2009 Exactly the same facts
Appeal No. 4. The only
v. May 28,2010 discernable difference is
the deletion of the
(1) Gmail.Com Controller of Certifying as
a party.
(2) Google Inc.
Mascon Global Limited Appeal No. 7/2009 Even this appeal has the
same bundle of facts as
v. May 28,2010 present in Appeals Nos. 3,
4, 5. However this appeal
(1) Controller of Certifying has been filed by the
Authorities Company where the
Appellants work rather
(2) Gmail.Com than in thier individual
names.
(3) Google Inc.
Mascon Global Limited Appeal No. 8/2009 Exactly the same facts
Appeal No. 7. The only
v. May 28,2010 discernable difference is
the deletion of the
(1) Gmail.Com Controller of Certifying as
a party.
(2) Google Inc.
Table prepared for the blog post, “Another CAT” published at www.iltb.apargupta.com
The same set of issues are formed in this
Appeal as in Appeals Nos. 3, 4, 5.
The same set of issues are formed in this
Appeal as in Appeals Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
The same set of issues are formed in this
Appeal as in Appeals Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
precedents and statutory provisions
cited are the same as present in
Appeals Nos. 3 and 4.
Dismissed. Expectedly even this
Appeal is dismissed on grounds of
jurisdiction. The reasoning, legal
precedents and statutory provisions
cited are the same as present in
Appeals Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
Dismissed. Expectedly even this
Appeal is dismissed on grounds of
jurisdiction. The reasoning, legal
precedents and statutory provisions
cited are the same as present in
Appeals Nos. 3, 4 , 5, 6.
Dismissed. Expectedly even this
Appeal is dismissed on grounds of
jurisdiction. The reasoning, legal
precedents and statutory provisions
cited are the same as present in
Appeals Nos. 3, 4 , 5, 6 and 7.
3