Civil Cases in Cyberspace

- Ms. Shraddha Shukla

 Rights of a person

Right in personum Right in rem

Right “against a Right “against all the

particular person” world”

Example: Right to performance Example: Right to enjoy one’s

of contract, Right to recover a
debt from the person who owes
me the money, Right to
compensation for any damages
etc.
property, Right to move freely,
Right to reputation, Right to
privacy etc.
 In Cyberspace

Right in personum Right in rem

Example: Breach of an E- Example: Dishonestly damaging a

Contract, Cyber Torts – Damage computer, Hacking, Data theft,
to computer, downloading a file Stalking, Cyber bullying etc.
without authority etc.

Civil Cases Criminal Cases

 General flow of a Civil Case

Plaint Summons Written First Hearing Settlement of Trial

Statement issues

Before a Civil
Evidence Act comes into
Court
picture only at this stage.

S. 9 CPC – all suits of civil nature to The Court settles issues Judgement
be tried by a Civil Court unless between the parties i.e. these
impliedly or expressly barred by a are the issues on which the
law in force. parties are in conflict.
 General flow of a Criminal
Case

…………

FIR Investigation Police Report Magistrate Issue of Documents Charge Framing

begins by filed before takes Process given to the
Investigating the Magistrate Cognizance accused
Officer – a.k.a. on P.R.
Charge sheet

Evidence Act comes into

Trial
picture only at this stage.

…………

Charge Framed Judgement

Plea of guilt – Not guilty
 Civil Cases (Right in personum)

Cases Specified under Cases not specified under IT Act,

IT Act, 2000 – Also 2000
known as “Cyber
Torts”
Example: Breach of E-Contract

To be heard by Adjudicating Officer

Civil suit can be filed in a Civil
Court.

Adjudicating Officer has been given exclusive

jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction for the
matters specified under IT Act, 2000 under S. 61 of
the Act.
 What all cases fall under the IT Act, 2000 to be tried as a Civil Case before an
Adjudicating Officer?

• Section 43 and 43A of the IT Act, 2000 provides compensation for a wrong done in the
Cyberspace. These wrongs include – unauthorised access to a computer; unauthorised
downloading, copying, or extracting data; introducing a computer contaminant or computer
virus into any other person’s computer; damaging a computer; failure to protect data by a
body corporate who had the duty to do so; failure to furnish any document to the Controller
or Certifying Authority etc.
• In all the above cases the judgement debtor will be liable to pay damages by way of
compensation or penalty (as the case may be) to the aggrieved party.
• S. 45 of the IT Act, 2000 acts as a residuary provision to pay compensation or penalty not
exceeding twenty five thousand rupees in case of any contravention of any rule or regulation
provided under the IT Act, for which any express provision is not provided.
 Who is an Adjudicating Officer?

• S. 46 of the IT Act, 2000 provides for the appointment of an Adjudicating Officer by the
Central Government for the purpose of adjudging under Chapter IX of the IT Act, 2000.
Such an officer must not be below the rank of a Director to the Government of India or an
equivalent officer of a State Government.
• The pecuniary jurisdiction of an Adjudicating Officer is Rs. 5 Crores. Which means if the
value of the suit is more than Rs. 5 Crores then Adjudicating Officer does not have the
power to hear such a case and in that case the case will be filed before a Competent Court.
• An adjudicating officer has the power to inquire in a case filed before it under Chapter IX of
the IT Act, 2000.
• S. 46 (3) of the IT Act, 2000 puts a condition on the appointment of an adjudicating officer
by specifying the eligibility of such a person. “No person shall be appointed as an
adjudicating officer unless he possesses such experience in the field of Information
Technology and legal or judicial experience as may be prescribed by the Central
Government.”
 Powers of an Adjudicating Officer

• S. 46 (5) of the IT Act, 2000 – “Every adjudicating officer shall have the powers of a civil
court which are conferred on the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section
58, and –
(a) all proceedings before it shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the
meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of sections 345 and 346 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
(c) shall be deemed to be a civil court for purposes of Order XXI of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908).”
• S. 47 provides the factors which an Adjudicating Officer needs to keep in mind while
deciding the quantum of compensation:
(a) Amount of unfair damage due to the default, where it is quantifiable
(b) Amount of loss caused to a person because of the default
(c) Whether the default has been repeated again and again.
• Note:-
1. S. 193 IPC – Punishment for giving false evidence (Perjury) – 7 years
2. S.228 IPC - Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial
proceeding (Cases of contempt) – “shall be punished with simple or rigorous
imprisonment for a term extending up to six months, or with fine extending up to one
thousand rupees, or with both.”
3. S. 345 CrPC – Procedure in certain cases of contempt
4. S. 346 CrPC – Procedure where Court considers, that case should not be dealt with
under section 345 CrPC.
5. Order XXI CPC - Executions
 Civil Cases in the Cyberspace can be filed before an Adjudicating Officer or
before a Civil Court (as the case may be)

Every Civil Court or an Adjudicating Officer will have its own territorial jurisdiction
(S. 46 (4) of IT Act, 2000 – Where more than one adjudicating officers are appointed, the Central
Government shall specify by order the matters and places with respect to which such officers shall
exercise their jurisdiction.)

Jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a case and give judgement. S. 75 of the IT Act, 2000
provides extra-territorial jurisdiction to Indian Court for any offence or contravention committed
outside India targeting a computer, computer system or computer network in India.

However, IT Act, 2000 fails to determine boundaries for Courts within India. So in order to decide
jurisdiction, we take help of the general law, i.e. Civil Procedure Code for Civil Cases and IPC r/w
CrPC for Criminal Cases.
 Civil Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

• In India, generally, the civil jurisdiction lies where the wrong is done. It is based on the
maxim of lex loci deliciti. While in property suits, it is based upon lex situs or law of
physical location.
• S. 9 of CPC provides that all suits of civil nature will be filed before a Civil Court unless
such suit is either impliedly or expressly barred by a law for the time being in force. S. 61 of
the IT Act, 2000 expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the matters where an
Adjudicating Officer has been given the power to adjudicate, i.e. under Chapter IX of the IT
Act, 2000. Thus, for the matters which are not mentioned under Chapter IX and which are of
civil nature, can be tried by the general Civil Court. For example: Breach of an E-Contract,
Suits whose value is more than Rs. 5 Crores.
• S. 16 of CPC defines the territorial jurisdiction on the basis of the location of the immovable
property. In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. the court
interpreted S. 16 of CPC and held that the suit pertaining to immovable property should be
brought to a court where the property is situated. The Court where the property is not
situated does not have any powers to decide the rights in such property. However, the court
can still pass a relief if the opposite party agrees to try the suit in such a case.
 Civil Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

• In the suits related to the wrong (including compensation for such wrong) done to a person
or to a movable property, the plaintiff can institute the suit either at the place wherein the
wrong was committed or the place where the defendant resides, carries business,
works. In the situation where the wrong constitutes of a series of acts then the suit can be
filed at either of the places. In case wherein the wrongful act was committed at one place
and it’s consequences were in the other place then the plaintiff can file the claim at
either of the place. (S. 19 of CPC)
• S. 20 of the CPC covers the cases which have not been covered by the other provisions:
The plaintiff is at the liberty to institute a suit in any of the following places:
1. The place where the cause of action arose, completely or in parts.

As discussed earlier, in case of an E-Contract there can be two rules – Postal Rule or Instantaneous Rule. In
case of a Contract through E-mail/Website/WhatsApp/ Telephonic conversation, instantaneous rule will
apply. In case of any contract, Cause of Action (COA) arises at the place of contract. In postal rule, place of
contract is the place of the acceptor (where the proposal is accepted) and in instantaneous rule, place of
contract is the place of the proposer (where the acceptance is heard).
 Civil Jurisdiction in Cyberspace

2. Wherein the defendant carries out his business or resides or works for gain,
3. In case of multiple defendants, wherein any of the defendant resides or carries out their business or
resides or work for gain.

• Jurisdiction of a Civil Court or an Adjudicating Officer can be decided by relying upon the
provisions provided under CPC.
• It must be realised that in cyber transactions there might be multiple jurisdictions pertaining
to the same suit. In case of a conflict of interest the Court will decide the jurisdiction so that
injustice is not done to any of the parties as per its inherent power u/s. 151 of CPC.
Objections to jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest i.e. before the settlement of issues, in
the court of first instance.
 Civil Suit by a foreigner against an Indian

• Enforcement and implementation of foreign decrees hold a great challenge. In order to

implement the foreign decree, it should be final order with respect to the subjects, therefore,
concisely settled by the parties amongst themselves.

‘A’ Files a suit in UK ‘B’

Lives in UK against ‘B’ Lives in India

Gets a foreign decree Can this foreign

against ‘B’ decree be directly
enforced in India ?
Ans: No.
• The foreign decree passed against the Indian defendant is probably not enforceable based on
the procedure laid in Section 13 of CPC. It should be noted that the aggrieved party must
approach Indian Courts to either get the foreign decree performed under Section 44A or file
an entirely new suit upon the decision for its enforcement.
• Such a foreign decree will be considered as an evidence in the suit which needs to be proved
under S. 13 of CPC. If the foreign decree falls under any of the conditions under S. 13 CPC
then it will not be enforced against the defendant in India. The alternate for this would be for
the plaintiff to file a suit in India where the defendant resides or has business or works for
gain.
• A certified copy of the decree from the foreign or superior court has to be filed in the
district court then such decree will be perceived as if it were passed in India and the decree
can be executed by the district court. Along with the certified copy, another certificate has
to be filed that states the extent to which the decree has been satisfied. Section 47
governs the procedure for filing of the certified copy and the District Court can refuse to
execute the decision if the execution falls under the exception stated in subsection (a) to (f)
of S. 13 of CPC.
 Civil Suit against a foreigner by an Indian

• Now, in the vice versa case, wherein the plaintiff party is in India and the defendant resides
in a foreign jurisdiction, it can be tackled by S. 19 of CPC. S. 19 allows for the filing of a
suit for damages of the wrong committed to the movable property or the person. The suit can
be instituted at the jurisdiction of the place of business or residence of the defendant or the
place wherein the wrong was done.

Files a suit in India

‘B’ ‘A’
against ‘A’
Lives in India Lives in UK

Can this decree be

Gets a decree against directly enforced
‘A’ in UK against ‘A’ ?
Ans: No.
• S. 45 of the CPC envisages a possibility of execution of a decree, passed by Indian Courts,
in the foreign jurisdiction under certain situations. So, it will help transferring the execution
decree from Indian jurisdiction to a foreign jurisdiction.
• Therefore, the issue of jurisdiction can be solved by invoking CPC along with the IT Act,
2000.
 Cyber Appellate Tribunal

• Chapter X of the IT Act, 2000 talks about the establishment of one or more appellate
tribunals known as the Cyber Appellate Tribunals.
• Cyber Appellate Tribunal or CAT is an appellate body for hearing the appeals from orders
of Controller or Adjudicating Officer. Such an appeal shall be filed within 45 days from
the date on which a copy of the order made by the Controller or the adjudicating officer is
received by the person aggrieved. The appeal shall be dealt with CAT as expeditiously as
possible and an endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six
months from the date of receipt of the appeal. (S. 57 of the IT Act, 2000)
• Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the CAT may file an appeal to the High
Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the
CAT to him on any question of fact or law arising out of such order. (S. 62 of the IT Act,
2000)