Ms. Aruna Kashinath v. Controller of Certifying Authorities & Others
In the Cyber Appellate Tribunal
Appeal 5/2009
Before Mr Rajesh Tandon, Chairperson
Decided on May 28, 2010

Relevancy of the case: Maintainability of appeal under Section 57 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 17, 30, 43, 46, 57, 58(2))
• The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order 11 Rule 12, Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant was shocked to see the print outs being copies of the various e-mails which were sent by the e-mail ID “[email protected].”
• It was stated that the e-mail ID was created in the name of the appellant.
• The counsel of the appellant submitted that somebody fraudulently and dishonestly fabricated his email ID to degrade the reputation of appellant’s employer company.
• The said unknown person has sent derogatory and defamatory e-mails to distinguished personalities which include the investor, chairman and the CEO of the appellant’s company.
• The appellant decided to appeal at the Cyber Appellate Tribunal Court but it was argued by the respondent that the present appeal is not maintainable by this court.

 Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

Counsels for the appellant:

• The appellant’s ID was misused and fabricated. The Court has inherent jurisdiction to decide the appeal even without exhausting the alternative remedy. They have referred to the provisions of Section 58 of the Information Technology Act in order to support the argument.

Counsels for the respondent number 1:

• They pointed out that the present appeal is void ab initio as the appeal can be filed under Section 57 of the Information Technology Act only against an order of the Controller that too as per the Chapter relating to Digital signature.

Counsels for the respondent number 2 & 3:

• The counsels have also filed a statement of objections wherein it has been stated that the appellant has impleaded Gmail.com as respondent no. 2 and that Gmail.com is a service offered by Google Inc. and is not a legal entity by itself, as such the appellant has wrongly impleaded Gmail.com as a party to the proceedings.

Opinion of the Bench

• After going through the judgments referred by the appellant, the defendant in such a case can also be left to appeal against the decree and therein challenge the order refusing leave to defend in terms of Section 105(1) of the Code.
• In view of the aforesaid, the statute provides that the appeal can be filed only against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer.
• So far as provisions of Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Chapter II are concerned, there is no scope to appeal against the order passed by the Certifying Authority.
• Therefore, in view of the above, the argument of the appellant cannot be said to be justified, and the same is rejected. Point is decided against the appellant and it is held that without exhausting alternative remedy of approaching the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Information Technology Act, 2000, no appeal is maintainable under Section 57 of the same.

Final Decision

• The argument of the appellant cannot be said to be justified, and the same is rejected.
• Liberty is given to the appellant to file the complaint within 30 days of this judgment.
• The Adjudicating Officer shall not debar the appellant from filing a complaint as having been time-barred and only the privilege of the time during the period when the appeal was pending shall be condoned automatically.

This case summary has been prepared by Mansi Vats, an undergraduate student at UPES, Dehradun, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.