Vinod Kaushik & Anr v. Madhvika Joshi & Ors
In the Cyber Appellate Tribunal
Appeal No 2/2010
Before Justice Rajesh Tandon, Chairperson
Decided on June 29, 2011

Relevancy of the case: Applicability of CPC O I R 10(4) in proceedings before an IT Adjudicator

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 65, 66E, 72, 85)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant trades commodities like Iron Ore, Chrome, Manganese, etc. His son is married to the respondent.
• The appellant’s son started living separately after the respondent filed a frivolous complaint at Ujjain, which got transferred to Pune.
• Respondent shared 9 printouts of emails and chat messages between the appellant and his son.
• Appellants contended that since they deal with the international community, they frequently change their passwords and do not share them.
• After the appellants received the printouts mentioned above, they filed an application with the IT Adjudicator of Maharashtra against the respondent and her associates for illegal hacking, unauthorized access and chat message tampering. They claimed damages of ₹50 lacs for monetary and reputational losses.
•  The police kept the appellant’s son in eight days’ custody using the printouts and detained his passport, severely affecting his business opportunities.
• The Maharashtra IT Adjudicator dismissed the complaint.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• Respondents contended that the appellant’s son is an adult and he can file an application in his personal capacity, which has not been the case. Therefore, since the Appellant and his son are distinct individuals, the nature of relief sought will also be different.
• Appellants argued that the Court could implead parties as necessary. Hence, the Court cannot dismiss a suit only due to non-joinder or misjoinder of parties under Order I Rule 10(4), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Opinion of the Bench

• The IT Adjudicator should have given a reasonable opportunity to the appellant’s son because this case significantly affects him.
• After filing an impleadment application, parties can present their evidence and prove their claims.

Final Decision

• The Appellant’s son must file an application before the Maharashtra IT Adjudicator.
• The Adjudicating Officer shall hear the matter afresh and on the basis of the observations made by this tribunal.
• The bench allowed the appeal with parties to bear their own costs.

इस केस के सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.