Case Name Citation Facts Issues Decision

Harish Kumar Vakaria v. Appeal No. 1/2009 Appeal against dismissal (i) Whether the appeal was within time ? (i) Yes, within time. Delay if any is
India Infnaloline Ltd.
TABLE OF CYBER APPELLATE
May 26,2010
TRIBUNAL DECISIONS
of petition filed under Sec.
43 of the IT Act. An online
(ii) Whether the appellant has suffered a loss
condoned.

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.
on account of the suspension of demat (ii) Remanded. The Appellate
account? 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) Whether necessary parties are represented (iii) No, the CAT holds that
in order to decide the complaint ? 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
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
Table prepared for the blog post, “Another CAT” published at www.iltb.apargupta.com with the Adjudicating Officer1 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