The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of filing appeals before the appropriate court based on the jurisdictional provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The instant appeal is arising from impugned order in Cyber Appeal No. 13/2015 dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.

2. The brief facts stated are that the respondents are Senior Citizens and are NRIs residing in Nigeria. They hold joint NRE Account No. 10206290511 with Appellant State Bank of India (Linking Road branch, Mumbai) and were having 6 fixed deposits with different maturity dates. One unknown fraudster sent several communications to the officials of Appellant Bank branch for breaking of two FDs of Respondents. The officials of the Appellant bank provided information pertaining to the FDs of the Respondent to the unknown fraudster without maintaining reasonable security measures and the procedures of due verification. Appellant further broke two fixed deposit accounts and transferred amount to the tune of 63 lakhs to overseas account. The factum of the incident was brought to the knowledge of the Respondent No. 1 only when he himself visited the concerned bank for updating his passbook.

3. Thereafter, respondents made complaint in P.S. Khar, Mumbai and subsequently filed a complaint bearing No. 1/2014 before Adjudicating Officer (Principal Secretary, IT, Government of Maharashtra) under Sections 43(a) and 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Adjudicating Officer directed the Appellant Bank to pay compensation of Rs. 40 Lakhs alongwith interest at rate of 12% p.a. thereon. The Appellant challenged the said order dated 12.01.2015 by way of Writ in W.P. No. 930/2015 before the High Court of Bombay.

4. The High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid Writ Petition directed the Appellant to approach Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi by order dated 12.01.2015 and Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order, hence the present Statutory Appeal under Section 62 of Information Technology Act, 2000 before this Court.

5. The question in the instant appeal is:

Whether the appeal filed is maintainable before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi?

6. The learned Senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog has submitted that Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is situated at New Delhi and is subject to superintendence of High Court. Learned Senior counsel has pointed out that it is open to the litigant who is dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The power of superintendence is vested in High Courts. The appellate authority is situated within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and impugned order dated 31.07.2018 is passed at Delhi and even if cause of action doctrine is to be invoked, substantial part of the cause of action lies at Delhi High court, therefore, present appeal is maintainable before this Court.

7. The impugned order appealed is neither a decree nor an order appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure, but a statutory appeal under Section 62 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Hence, provisions of CPC would not apply and the question of cause of action cannot be dealt when Statutory Appeal is filed.

8. In a given case when the original authority is situated at one place and appellate authority is constituted at another, the appeal would be maintainable at both the places.

9. The Appellate Authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situated having regard to the fact that the petitioner is dominus litis to choose his forum, and that since the original order merges into the Appellate order, the place where the Appellate Authority is located is also having jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal. Declining to entertain the Appeal would amount to failure of duty of the Court. Appellant bank relied upon Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, (2011) 124 DRJ 633 (FB) and on J. Sekar and Others vs. Union of India and Others.

10. Per contra the counsel o