State Bank of India v. Chander Kalani & Anr.
In the High Court of Delhi
FAO 547/2018
Before Justice I.S. Mehta
Decided on February 14, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Appropriate forum to hear appeals from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 43(a),62)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondents, Senior Citizen NRIs, hold a joint account with the State Bank of India, Mumbai branch. The State Bank of India gave information about the account to a fraudster who was able to transfer all the money overseas.
• The respondents complained in Khar, Mumbai and filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer (AO) in Mumbai under Sections 43(a) and 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The AO directed the bank to pay compensation of₹40 Lakhs along with interest.
• The bank appealed to the High Court of Bombay. The High Court directed the bank to approach the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) in New Delhi.
• TDSAT passed an order in favour of the respondents. As a result, the bank has filed the present appeal, challenging the TDSAT’s order before the High Court of Delhi.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel argued that since the Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal was situated in New Delhi, it is subject to the superintendence of the High Court of Delhi. Since the tribunal passed the order in New Delhi, part of the cause of action was in Delhi, and thus, the appeal is maintainable.
• The respondent’s counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable as no cause of action arose in Delhi. The appellant filed it under Section 62 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and since it is a statutory right, the High Court of Bombay is the appropriate court.

Opinion of the Bench

• The Court held that the present dispute’s original jurisdiction rested with the first forum, the Adjudicating Officer in Mumbai. The High Court of Bombay holds superintendence over the said forum.
• Neither party challenged the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer or the High Court of Bombay. Thus, the appellant must file the appeal before the High Court of Bombay.

Final Decision

• The court returned the appeal for presentation before the appropriate court.

Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.