Information Technology Law

PART A - The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)

I INTRODUCTION

• Information Technology (use of computers to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data); understanding cyberspace (cyberspace is a notional environment in which communication over computer network occurs; borderless environment), scope and regulation; internet, e-mail and world wide web; use – academics, e- commerce (B2B,B2C,C2C), social networking by individuals 

• Interface of information technology and law; current challenges – mobiles, cyber security, cloud computing and data privacy, misuse of social media, cyber crimes 

• Purpose and Object of Information Technology Act, 2000 (to facilitate e-commerce to remove major hurdles of writing and signature requirement for legal recognition, providing regulatory regime for to supervise certifying authorities and digital signature certificates, to create civil and criminal liabilities for contravention of provisions, and consequential amendments in other Acts); applicability(s.1(4); overriding effect (s.81); Definitions– information 2(1)(v), computer s.2(1)(i), computer network s.2(1)(j), computer resource 2(1)(k), computer system 2(1)(l), communication device 2(1)(ha)

1. Syed Asifuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 (1) ALD (Cri) 96; 2005 CriLJ 4314(meaning of computer)

   
   

In this case, the petitioners (employees of Tata Teleservices Limited) sought to quash an FIR lodged by Reliance Infocomm Ltd., which alleged that the petitioners were illegally attracting Reliance customers by tampering with the pre-programmed, "locked" CDMA mobile phone handsets provided by Reliance. The alleged modus operandi involved reprogramming the Electronic Serial Numbers (ESNs) of the Reliance handsets to migrate them to the Tata Indicom network, which was a rival service provider.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that a mobile phone handset falls under the definition of a "computer" under Section 2(1)(i) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and that the manipulation of the ESN programmed into the phone prima facie amounted to an offense of altering the computer source code under Section 65 of the IT Act. The court also found that a potential charge for copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act was arguable.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the charges under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 409, 420, and 120B) due to a lack of evidence for criminal breach of trust or cheating, but it dismissed the petitions to quash the charges under the IT Act and Copyright Act, allowing the police investigation to continue on those specific matters.

2. Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner, ILR 2005 KAR 2210

(Is ATM a computer – Held the enlarged definition of "computers" in the Information Technology Act cannot be made use of interpreting an Entry under fiscal legislation).

The case of Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes centered on the tax classification of Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 

Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, manufactured and supplied ATMs and sought clarification on the applicable sales tax rate. The company contended that ATMs should be categorized as "computer terminals" or "computers" under a specific entry in the Act, which would result in a 4% tax rate. The Advance Ruling Authority initially supported this view. 

However, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated a review, arguing that ATMs should be classified as "electronic goods" subject to a 12% tax rate. The Commissioner relied on the "common parlance" principle, stating that in everyday understanding, an ATM is primarily an electronic banking device rather than a computer. 

The Karnataka High Court ultimately upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing Diebold's appeal. The court determined that although ATMs contain computer components, they are not commonly recognized as computers or computer terminals in commercial contexts. The court emphasized that in tax laws, the popular or commercial meaning of a term takes precedence over its technical definition. Consequently, the sale of ATMs was correctly taxed at the 12% rate for electronic goods. The court also affirmed the Commissioner's power to revise an erroneous ruling by the Advance Ruling Authority that adversely affected revenue.

II LEGAL RECOGNITION AND AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS (a move to facilitate e-commerce)

• UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, and e-signatures (1996 and 2001);

• Legal Recognition under IT Act(ss,4-5); Authentication of records (Section 3) - Digital signature (functional equivalent of paper based signatures) S.-2(1)(p); function(confidentiality, authentication, integrity and non-repudiation);  Authentication by use of ‘asymmetric cryptosystem (s.2(1)(f)’, key pair (s.2(1)(x), public key S.-2(1)(zc), private key S.-2(1)(zd), Hash function (s.3), Electronic Signatures (ss. S.2(1)(ta) and 3A), Affixing electronic signature S.2(1)(d); secured electronic record(s.14) and secure electronic signature(s.15); S.-85B(2)(a),The Evidence Act, 1872 (Presumptions to electronic record and electronic signatures); S.67A and 73A the Evidence Act, 1872 (Proof as to electronic signature and proof of verification of digital signatures)

• Public key infrastructure and Hierarchy (ss.17-26); Role of certifying authorities, Electronic signature certificates, its suspension and revocation (ss.2(tb), 35-42); publishing false digital signatures and publication of digital signatures for fraudulent purposes are offences under the Act (ss. 73, 74 )

• Originator, addressee, Attribution, Acknowledgment and Despatch of Electronic Records -ss. 11-13

III CIVIL LIABILITIES

Cyber Torts

• Dispute Resolution under IT Act - Adjudicating officer and Appellate tribunal under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (s. 46 and s. 57)

• Damage to computer and computer system -(s.43) – access/facilitates access, data theft, virus attacks, email bombings, denial of service attack, damage to computer source code

3. Vinod Kaushik v. Madhvika Joshi, WP(C) 160/2012, Delhi High Court, order dt. 27/01/2012 available at https://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/Madhvika%20Vs%20Kaushik-highcourt.PDF

In this case, the petitioners (a man and his father) sought damages from the man's estranged wife (respondent) for accessing their email accounts without permission and using the information in a domestic violence case she filed against them. The Adjudicating Officer found the wife technically guilty under Section 43 of the Information Technology Act but refused to award damages, imposing only a token fine of ₹100, because the information was used solely for her legal case and not to malign the petitioners. The High Court, under Justice Vipin Sanghi, upheld this decision, dismissing the petition. The court reasoned that a mere breach of the IT Act is insufficient to claim compensation; actual damage directly resulting from the breach must be proven. The petitioners' claimed losses, such as litigation costs and business setbacks, were deemed "remote and indirect consequences" of the domestic violence case itself, not the unauthorized email access. The court concluded that any claim for damages could only be pursued for malicious prosecution if the domestic violence case is eventually proven to be falsely instituted.

4. Amit Dilip Patwardhan v. Rud India Chains Pvt. Ltd., Adjudicating Officer, decided on 15/04/2013 complaint no. 1 of 2013 available at https://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/AmitPatwardhanVsRudIndiaVipinRao%2015Apr%202013%20Rajesh%20Aggarwal.pdf

In this case, the complainant, Amit Patwardhan, was a former employee of Rud India Chains Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) who left to join a rival company. Rud India subsequently filed a civil suit against Patwardhan, alleging theft of trade secrets and claiming he was receiving illicit payments from the rival company. As evidence in the civil suit, Rud India submitted Patwardhan's bank statements, which Patwardhan claimed were obtained by the company through unauthorized means (hacking into the bank system). 

The Adjudicating Officer observed that the bank statement provided in court did not match the bank's standard format and the bank (Bank of Baroda) confirmed it had a policy of not disclosing customer details without their approval, nor did it know how the company obtained the statement. The Officer determined that the bank statement, being sourced from electronic records, fell under the purview of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The respondents (Rud India Chains) were found guilty of violating Section 43(b) read with Section 66 of the IT Act for data theft of sensitive personal information. 

While the company was held guilty, no substantial penalty was imposed at that stage because the Adjudicating Officer noted that the complainant was, prima facie, disloyal in his conduct, and the bank was not a party to the specific complaint. A later, separate order was issued to the bank (Bank of Baroda) to pay a token compensation of ₹ 5,000 for its apathy regarding customer data privacy. This case established a key precedent that an employer cannot illegally obtain and use an employee's private bank statements in legal proceedings. Subsequent proceedings in the Cyber Appellate Tribunal became infructuous due to the complainant's death and a private settlement with his widow. 

5. State Bank of India v. Chander Kalani, 2019 SCC online Del 7031

In this case, the petitioners (Chander Kalani and his wife, Romi Kalani) sought compensation from the respondent (State Bank of India) after a fraudster, using a compromised email account, induced the bank to prematurely break their fixed deposits and transfer the funds (totaling ₹ 63,00,000) to an overseas account. The Adjudicating Officer found the bank guilty under the Information Technology Act for failing to implement "reasonable security measures" and not following Reserve Bank of India mandates for verifying the authenticity of the transaction requests, specifically by accepting scanned forms via email without adequate cross-verification.

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and later the Delhi High Court upheld this decision, dismissing the bank's appeal. The court reasoned that the bank's operational negligence and failure to exercise due diligence were the direct cause of the financial loss, outweighing any minor contributory negligence by the customer. The courts concluded that the bank was liable to compensate the Kalanis for the loss sustained due to its security lapses in handling electronic transactions, ordering the bank to pay ₹ 40,000,000 in compensation @18 % interest per annum.

• Data Protection (ss. 43A r/w sensitive personal information rules, 45, 72, 72A) - Privacy issues-use of personal information- supplied to commercial sites, cookies, cloud computing; S 67C (preservation of information by intermediaries)

6. Sanjay Dhande v. ICICI Bank and Vodafone decided on 16/01/2014 complaint no. 30 of 26th Sep. 2013 available at https://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site//ACT/DIT_Adjudication_SanjayDhande_vs_ICICI&rs-16012014.pdf;

In this judgment, Adjudicating Officer Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal found both ICICI Bank and Vodafone India liable under Section 43A of the IT Act, 2000, for failing to protect a customer's sensitive data, which led to a fraudulent withdrawal of approximately ₹19 lakhs. Fraudsters obtained a duplicate SIM card from Vodafone for the complainant's number by using forged documents and then used it to receive one-time passwords (OTPs) to illegally transfer funds from his ICICI Bank account. The judgment held Vodafone more culpable for its "endless" list of omissions in issuing the duplicate SIM without due diligence, ordering it to pay ₹12 lakhs in compensation. ICICI Bank was ordered to pay ₹6 lakhs for its laxity, including poor enforcement of KYC norms, failure to detect suspicious transactions, and non-cooperation with the police investigation. The officer concluded that both corporations demonstrated a "total apathy" and let their customer down through negligence that "almost border[ed] on connivance" with the criminals.

Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Sanjay Govind Dhande, 2020 SCC Online TDSAT 124

Chander Kalani v. SBI Bank, complaint no. 1 of 2014 decided on 12/01/2015 available at https://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_Chander%20Kalani Vs_SBI_Ors-12012015.PDF;

3. State Bank of India v.Chander Kalani TDSAT Cyber Appeal No. 13of 2015 decided on July 31,2018 available at tdsat.gov.in

The Cyber Appellate Tribunal, led by Chairperson Shiva Kirti Singh, dismissed the State Bank of India's appeal, upholding a previous order that awarded ₹40 lakhs in compensation to an NRI couple, the Kalanis. The case arose after fraudsters, using the Kalanis' hacked email account, instructed the bank to break their fixed deposits and transfer approximately 60,000 GBP to accounts in London. The Tribunal found the bank liable under Section 43A of the Information Technology Act for being negligent in implementing and maintaining "reasonable security practices and procedures." The bank's failures included acting on email instructions for a customer who had not authorized email banking, accepting a scanned signature on a required form instead of an original one, and leaking sensitive account information in email replies which facilitated the fraud. Despite the Adjudicating Officer noting that the customer shared some blame for not updating a defunct mobile number, the Tribunal affirmed the compensation amount, reasoning that the bank's multiple, serious security lapses directly caused the wrongful loss, and the amount was justified given the total damages claimed by the complainants.

• Online defamation

SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra, suit no. 1201/2001, New Suit No. 65/14 Delhi district Court decided on Feb 12, 2014 available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/31110930/

IV. CRIMINAL LIABILITIES

Cyber Crimes- financial frauds (money laundering, credit card frauds, social crimes -cyber stalking, pornography, identity theft, ipr related crimes, cyber terrorism, defamation (s.43 read with s. 66; ss. 65-67B)

• Tampering with computer source code (s. 65)

  4. Syed Asifuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 (1) ALD (Cri) 96; 2005 CriLJ 4314

In this case, employees of Tata Indicom were accused by Reliance Infocomm of illegally reprogramming Reliance's subsidized mobile handsets to make them work on the Tata network. The court delivered a partial judgment, quashing the charges under the Indian Penal Code for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy, reasoning that the accused employees had no direct entrustment of property from or deceptive dealing with Reliance itself. However, the court refused to quash the charges under Section 65 of the Information Technology Act and Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The judge held that a mobile phone is a 'computer,' and its unique Electronic Serial Number (ESN), which was being altered, qualifies as a 'computer source code.' Therefore, altering the ESN constituted a prima facie offense of tampering. The court also found that this act could potentially be an infringement of the computer program's copyright, and thus directed the police to continue their investigation into these specific IT and copyright-related offenses.

5. Sanjay Kumar v State of Haryana P&H CRR No. 66 of 2013 dt 10/01/2013(65, 66)

In this judgment, the court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Sanjay Kumar, a software maintenance professional who was convicted for defrauding Vijay Bank of ₹17,67,409. The petitioner used his authorized access to the bank's software system to forge and manipulate entries in the computerized ledgers, illegally transferring funds by inflating interest calculations and routing money through other customers' accounts into his own, which he then withdrew. The conviction for cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code and for tampering with computer source documents and hacking under the Information & Technology Act was upheld, as the lower courts had correctly relied on evidence showing the fraudulent transactions, a written confession by the petitioner, and his partial repayment of the stolen amount. The court found no legal or factual infirmity in the conviction and dismissed the petition.

• Hacking (s. 43(i) read with s. 66)

  6. State of A.P. through Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes P.S., CID, Hyderabad v. Prabhakar Sampath, Add. CMM Hyderabad, decided on 31/03/2015, CC 489 0f 2010 available at: www.prashantmali.com/cyber-law-cases

In this case, the Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused, Prabhakar Sampath, for hacking under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The complainant, M/s. SIS Infotech Private Limited, a market research firm, reported that their server had been hacked and valuable, proprietary research reports were illegally downloaded. The police investigation traced the provided IP address to the accused's employer, M/s. Frost & Sullivan Pvt. Ltd., in Chennai. A subsequent search of the accused's residence led to the seizure of a pen drive containing six specific PDF research files that were downloaded from the complainant's website. Following his arrest and confession, police also seized the accused's office computer, and a forensic analysis confirmed the presence of the same six stolen files on both the pen drive and the computer's hard disk. After completing the investigation, the court framed charges against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and opted for a trial.

• Identity Theft and cheating by Personation (ss.66C and 66D) (phishing, email spoofing, password theft etc.)

  7. NAASCOM v. Ajay Sood, 119 (2005) DLT 596 (Phishing)

In a trademark and passing-off suit filed by NASSCOM, the parties reached a compromise after it was discovered that an employee of the defendant companies had engaged in "phishing" by sending fraudulent emails masquerading as NASSCOM to illegally obtain personal data for head-hunting purposes. The defendants admitted that their employee created fictitious email identities to perpetrate the fraud, and they agreed to a consent decree which included a permanent injunction against using the NASSCOM trade name, surrendering the seized computer hard discs containing the fraudulent emails, and acknowledging the plaintiff's rights. While noting the lack of specific anti-phishing legislation in India, the court treated the act as a form of misrepresentation and passing-off, and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, permanently restraining the defendants from such activities in the future.

• Obscenity and Pornography (ss.66E, 67, 67A, 67B, s.292 IPC)v

  8. Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (SC) Criminal Appeal no. 902 of 2004 decided on 3/2/2014 (Obscenity Test)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal obscenity proceedings initiated against the publishers of "Sports World" magazine and "Anandabazar Patrika" newspaper for republishing a photograph of the renowned tennis player Boris Becker posing semi-nude with his Black fiancée, Barbara Feltus. The Court rejected the archaic British "Hicklin test," which judges obscenity by its effect on the most susceptible minds, and instead applied the modern "contemporary community standards test." It held that a work must be judged as a whole, from the perspective of an average person, and that nudity itself is not obscenity. Crucially, the Court emphasized the importance of context and the message conveyed, noting that the photograph was not intended to be lascivious but was a powerful artistic statement against racism and apartheid, celebrating interracial love. Finding that the image was not obscene when viewed in this proper context, the Court concluded that the Magistrate and High Court had erred in allowing the prosecution to continue and accordingly set aside the proceedings.

9. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, Decided by CMM, Egmore, decided on Nov. 5, 2004 available at http://www.prashantmali.com/cyber-law-cases; http://www.legalserviceindia.com/lawforum/index.php?topic=2238.0

In what is considered India's first conviction in a cybercrime case, the court found the accused, Suhas Katti, guilty of harassing a former female colleague who had rejected his marriage proposal. The accused retaliated by creating a fake email account in the victim's name and posting obscene, defamatory messages about her to various Yahoo groups, including her real phone number, which led to her receiving numerous harassing calls. The prosecution successfully proved its case by tracing the IP addresses of the messages to the Mumbai cyber cafes used by the accused, securing eyewitness identification from the cafe owners, and using the password provided by the accused in his confession to access the incriminating emails. The court convicted him for forgery to harm reputation (Sec 469 IPC), insulting the modesty of a woman (Sec 509 IPC), and publishing obscene material electronically (Sec 67 of IT Act), sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and dismissing his plea for leniency due to the severe mental agony his actions caused the victim.

Avinash Bajaj v.State, Delhi HC decided on 29/05/2008 available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/309722/

Air Force Bal Bharti School Case

10. The State (Cyber Cell) ...Complainant v. Yogisha @ Yogesh Pandurang Prabhu, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th court, Esplanade, Mumbai C.C. No. 3700686/ps/2009 decided on 3/07/2015 available at: http://www.cyberlawconsulting.com/Yogesh%20Prabhu%20Vs%20State-%20Cyber%20Stalking.pdf (s.66E. S.67. S. 67A)

In this cyberstalking case, the court convicted Yogesh Prabhu for harassing a former friend, Sonali Sawai, after she rejected his marriage proposal and "unfriended" him online. In retaliation, the accused created a fake email ID and a bogus online profile in her name, from which he sent her a series of obscene and vulgar emails containing pornographic images and also publicized her mobile number, leading to her receiving harassing calls. The conviction was based on a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, including IP addresses traced to the accused's work locations, forensic analysis of his laptop revealing traces of the fake accounts, and crucially, the accused's own disclosure of the unique password to the bogus email account, which allowed police to access the "sent" folder and confirm his authorship of the messages. The court found him guilty of insulting the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the IPC and for violation of privacy under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, sentencing him to a total of three months simple imprisonment and a fine.

10. Maqbool Fida Husain v.Raj Kumar Pandey, Delhi HC decided on 8/5/2008

In this landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court quashed all criminal proceedings against the celebrated artist M.F. Husain concerning his controversial painting of a nude woman abstractly depicting "Bharat Mata" in distress. The court held that the artwork was not obscene under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, as it did not appeal to prurient interests or have the tendency to deprave or corrupt the viewer. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul emphasized that artistic freedom is paramount and that nudity per se is not obscenity; the painting's context and message—a symbolic expression of national suffering and agony—had to be considered. The court reasoned that an average person would react to the art with empathy or contemplation rather than lust. It also dismissed related charges of wounding religious feelings and public annoyance, finding no deliberate intent to offend. The judgment concluded with a powerful call for cultural tolerance, urging against the misuse of the criminal justice system to stifle artistic expression and highlighting the duty of magistrates to prevent vexatious litigation against artists.

Vaibhav Jain v. Vice Chancellor Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, decided on 3rd Jan 2002 , available at Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/521882/ 

• Cyber Stalking (ss.354D, 509 IPC) 66 

Ritu Kohli Case (Del)

• Cyber Terrorism (s.66F)

Rakesh v.Central Bureau, Delhi District Court, 2011 5 February, 2011(Delhi Blast case-terror e-mail sent by hacking ˘Wi Fi in Mumbai)

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – ss. 65A and 65B, The Evidence Act, 1872

12. Anvar P.V v. P.K.Basheer, Supreme Court, decided on 18 September, 2014, Civil Appeal No.. 4226 of 2012, available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/

Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 SCC Online SC 571

V INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY

Intermediary (s.2(1)(w), cyber café (s. 2(1)n(a)), Exemption from liability, due diligence (s.79 r/w Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011); s.72A

Cases

Shreya Singhal v U.O.I, SC decided on 24/03/2015

13. My Space Inc. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., Delhi (DB), FAO(OS) 540/2011, C.M. APPL.20174/2011, 13919 & 17996/2015 decided on 23 December, 2016 available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/12972852/

Avinash Bajaj v. State Delhi HC decided on 29/05/2008

14. Google India Pvt Ltd v. M/s Visaka Industries Ltd, A P High Court Crl P No, 7207 of 2009 dt 19/4/2011 available at http://www.cyberlawconsulting.com/cyber-cases.html 

Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishakha Industries, 2019 SCC Online SC 1587

15. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, Indian Public Charitable Trust v. Jitendra BaggaDel HC CS(OS) No. 1340/2012decided on 09/05/2012 129

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. 1Mg Technologies Pvt. Ltd, (Del) I.A. 11335/2018CS (OS) 410/2018 decided on July 8, 2019, available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/145401736/; Amazon Seller Services v. Modicare, Del(DB) decided on 31/01/2020 available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/43335747/

VI CYBER SECURITY

National Security- Interception, Blocking, Protected System (69-70B), procedure of Blocking and Interception under the rules, and its interface with freedom of speech and privacy, right to be forgotten

16. Shreya Singhal v U.O.I, SC decided on 24/03/2015(s. 66A) 132

Ratan Tata v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil)No. 98 of 2010

Sreekanth C. Nair v. Developer of Web-Site, Kerala High Court 28 August 2008, Cr. R.P. No.2900 of 2008available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1915848

Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 996

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637;2020 SCC Online SC 25

PART B – APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS ON E-COMMERCE

VII. E- CONTRACTS

Kinds of Contracts -email, web contracts, Standard form contracts

Formation of E-contracts - application of The Contract Act, 1872 viz a viz ss.10A,11-13

IT Act

United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International

Contract 2005

Trimex International Fze ... v. Vedanta Aluminium Limited,India decided on 22 January, 2010 (SC) Arbitration petition no. 10 of 2009 (email exchange between parties regarding mutual obligations constitute a contract)

17. World Wrestling entertainment v. Reshma Collections, FAO (OS) 506/2013 in CM Nos. 17627/2013, 18606/2013, Del(DB) decided on 15/10/2014

P.R. Transport Agency v. Union of India, AIR 2006 All 23.vii

VIII TRADE MARKS AND DOMAIN NAMES

Domain names – functions, use as trade mark, infringement/ passing off -reputed marks marks (cybersquatting, keywords sale by search engines); Dispute resolution under – ICANN Policy-UDRP, INDRP

18. Satyam Infoway Ltd v Sify net solutions Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 3540

Aqua Minerals v. Pramod Barse, 2001 PTC 619 (Del) 195

IX JURISDICTION IN CYBERSPACE

No geographical boundaries, applicability of traditional rules of jurisdiction on internet, rules of private international law; passive/interactive web sites; personal jurisdiction on defendant -Cause of action(s.20 CPC(ss. Criminal jurisdiction (the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 177-179 , 186,188 and 189); Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under IT Act (s.1(2), s75, s.3 IPC)

Cases:

19. Banyan Tree Holdings (P) Ltd v. A Murali Krishna Reddy, CS (OS) No. 894/2008, Del(DB), decided on 23/11/2009; 205

P.R. Transport Agency v. Union of India, AIR 2006 All 23.

Super CassettesIndustries Ltd v. Myspace Inc., IA No.15781/2008 & IA No. 3085/2009 in CS (OS) No. 2682/2008(Del) decided on 29/07/2011

World Wrestling entertainment v. Reshma Collections, FAO (OS) 506/2013 in CM Nos. 17627/2013, 18606/2013, Del(DB) decided on 15/10/2014

Big Tree Entertainment v. Saturday Sunday Media Internet, CS (COMM) Nos. 53/2015 and 54/2015 (Del) decided on 21/12/2015

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd v. S & D Hospitality, I.A. Nos. 1950/2017 in CS(COMM) 111/2017 (Del) decided on 3/01/2018

Maqbool Fida Husain v. Raj Kumar Pandey, Delhi HC decided on 8/5/2008

e-Readings

1. Nishith Desai, E-commerce in India – Legal, tax and regulatory analysis available at http://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Research%20Papers/E-Commerce_in_India.pdf

2. Hemali Shah and Aashish Srivastavat “Signature Provisions in the Amended Indian Information Technology Act 2000: Legislative Chaos”, 43 Comm. L. World Rev. 208 2014 available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2748441

3. Christopher Reed, “Legally binding electronic documents: Digital Signatures and Authentication 35(1) International Lawyer 89-106 available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40707597

4. “Cyber Laws of India”, www.iibf.org.in/documents/Cyber-Laws-chapter-in-Legal-Aspects-Book.pdf(Book on IT security of IIBF published by Taxmann Publishers

5. Clay Wilson, “Cyber Crimes”, in Fraklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr and Lerry K. Wentz (Eds.), Cyberpower and National Security, University of Nebrasaka Press: Potomac Books, available at http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt1djmhj1.23

6. Amlan Mohanty, New Crimes under the Information Technology Amendment Act, 7 Ind. J. L. & Tech. 103 (2011) available at Westlaw India

7. Michael Gisler et. Al., “Legal Aspects of Electronic Contracts”, available at http://kavehh.com/my%20Document/Essex/Digital%20signature/legal%20aspect%20of%20Electronic%20Contracts.pdf

8. Mayuri Patel and Subhasis Saha, “Trade Mark in Digital Era”, 13 JIPR 118-128 (March 2008) available at http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/425/1/JIPR%2013%282%29%20%282008%29%20118-128.pdf

9. Frosio, Giancarlo, Internet Intermediary Liability: WILMap, Theory and Trends (October 16, 2017). 13(1) Indian Journal of Law and Technology (2017) ; Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies, Research Paper No. 2017-10. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3053966

BOOKS AND READINGS RECOMMENDED

Books

• Kamath Nandan, Law Relating to Computers Internet & E-commerce - A Guide to Cyberlaws & The Information Technology Act, Rules, Regulations and Notifications along with Latest Case Laws 5th Ed. (2016)

• Karnika Seth,Computers Internet and New Technology Laws (2016)

• Kamlesh K Bajaj, Debjani Nag, E-commerce: the cutting edge of business, 2nd Ed. (2005)

• Apar Gupta, Commentary on Information Technology Act(2016)

• Aparna Viswanathan, Cyber Law (Indian & International Perspectives on key topics including Data Security, E-commerce, Cloud Computing and Cyber Crimes)(2012)viii

• Prashant Mali, Cyber Law and Cyber Crimes,2nd Ed.(2015)

• Debrati Halder & H Jaishanker, Cyber Crimes Against Women, Sage Publications 1st Ed.(2017)

• Vakul Sharma, Information Technology Law & Practice 6th Ed. (2018)

• Chris Reed, Internet Law Text and Materials (2010)

• Ferrera et al, Cyber Law Text and Cases 3rd Ed. (2012)

• Internet Law and Practice by International Contributors, West Thomson Reuters, South Asian Edition (2013)

• SK Verma and Raman Mittal (Eds.), Legal Dimensions of Cyberspace, (2004)

• Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace 1999, Code version 2.0, Basic Books Publication (2006)

~The End~