Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(TDSAT) 31
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ram Krishna Gautam, Member
Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Axis Bank Ltd. – Respondent
Cyber Appeal No. 1 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohit Madan
For the Respondents: Abhimanyu Chopra, Kushagra Jain, Shreya Pathak, Vasudha Arora
A body corporate constitutes a 'person' under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and is entitled to file a complaint for compensation under Section 46 for contraventions of IT provisions; procedural technicalities should not supersede the attainment of substantial justice.
Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 43, 43A, 46 and 61 - IT Amendment Act, 2008 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 3 - Limitation of jurisdiction - Whether a body corporate can be a 'person' under section 43 - The appellate tribunal held that the term 'person' as defined in the General Clauses Act includes companies and bodies corporate; therefore, a complaint against a bank for contravention of the IT Act is maintainable under Section 46 of the IT Act 2008.
(B) Procedural Law - Power of Attorney - Standing of authorized representative - The tribunal emphasized that procedural technicalities should not frustrate substantial justice and confirmed that the authorized representative appointed by the company possessed the necessary standing to maintain the appeal.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a public limited company, filed a complaint for compensation under Section 46 of the IT Act 2008 against the respondent banks for unauthorized access to its information systems leading to a financial loss. The Adjudicating Officer dismissed the complaint, holding that Section 43 of the IT Act did not apply to corporate entities.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was erroneous as it failed to consider that the jurisdiction under Section 46 is wide enough and that body corporates fall within the definition of 'person' for the purpose of the Act. The matter was remanded with costs imposed on the respondent bank.
Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 43/46 of the IT Act is maintainable against a body corporate and whether procedural defects in representation rendered the appeal non-maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal entity of a corporation allows it to sue and be sued; the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act applies to the IT Act, enabling corporate entities to seek adjudication for damages under the relevant provisions.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. adjudication of cyber complaints under it act 2000/2008. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. status of a corporate body as a 'person' under law. (Para 7 , 8 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. maintainability of appeal vs procedural/technical objections. (Para 9 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. jurisdiction and scope of it act amendments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final orders, remand, and costs. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
1. This Cyber Appeal, under Section 57 of IT Act, 2000, has been filed by Appellant – Complainant, Gujarat Petrosynthese Limited (GPL) against Axis Bank Ltd. and Others- Respondents-Opposite parties, in main complaint, against the impugned order, dated 27.12.2011, passed by Learned Adjudicating Officer, Principal Secretary to Government of State of Karnataka, in Complaint under Section 43 of IT Act, 2000, with a prayer for allowing this appeal, thereby setting aside Impugned Order of Learned Adjudicator, and remand the matter to adjudicator, to continue the adjudication process for expeditious disposal, as per principles and procedure provided for in the Information Technology Act, 2008 and accompanying rules.
2. In brief, memo of appeal, contends that Appellant had approached Learned Adjudicating Authority i.e., Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Information and Technology, Government of State of Karnataka, on 28.10.2011, with an application, under Section 46 of IT Act, 2000, as amended by IT Amendment Act, 2008, for having compensation for its suffering of wrongful loss of Rs. 39,00,550/-, on account of certain contraventions of Information Technology Act, 2008, by the 12 Respondents, arrayed as opposite parties, in above complaint. The adjudication application also stated the reasons, why each of Respondents could be considered, as jointly and severely liable, to pay compensation to the applicant, and providing other details, including certain documents, related to RBI Guidelines, National and International case laws etc. Opposite parties i.e, Axis bank, ING Vysya Bank, and HDFC Bank, were represented and others were not present. Axis Bank submitted two Interlocutory Applications. Firstly, seeking time for filing the reply and then objecting the proceedings and arguing that the application was not sustainable. ING Vysya Bank also submitted its reply, claiming it’s no liability, under Section 43 of IT Act.
3. This appeal, is not, however, made in respect of any of the substantive points, mentioned either in Complaint, or in respect of reply, filed by opposite party, because the Impugned Order is not with application of Judicial mind, nor is on merit on these facts under dispute. Rather, the Impugned Order, on which this appeal is filed, is on specific ground on which the adjudication application has been held, as not maintainable, in the Impugned Order, and this was with reference to the two points, raised by Axis Bank, in its Interlocutory Application, namely, Lack of Jurisdiction, and Non-maintainability of this complaint/ adjudication application, under Section 43 and 43 A, where Corporate persons were involved, either as a Complainant or the accused.
4. The two Interlocutory Applications, submitted by Axis Bank, on behalf of Respondents 1 to 7 and 12 to 14, were considered by the adjudicator, and the Impugned Order, against which the appeal rests, referred to these two Interlocutory Applications. Hence, this Appeal is restricted to those two points only.
5. In these Interlocutory Applications, Axis Bank disputed the Jurisdiction of the Adjudicator, to continue the proceedings and raised objection to the Sustainability of the proceedings under Section 43 of the ITA, 2008. Learned Adjudicating Officer, vide its Impugned Order, dated 27.12.2011, held the contention of Axis Bank with regard to jurisdiction, not with any ground, and this objection was over-ruled. Meaning thereby, jurisdiction of Learned Adjudication Officer was held to be there.
6. With regard to second objection, Learned Adjudicating Officer
