Indiabulls Securities Ltd. vs Arati Dhar I.A. No. 11557/2009 in O.M.P.

436/200
Facts
In regular course of business the appellant maintained an account of the respondent in its
books of accounts and from time to time the appellant forwarded to the respondent the
extracts of the said account, which was received, retained and accepted by the respondent
and at no point of time the respondent raised any dispute regarding the extract of the
accounts. there was a amount to be paid and was due and respondents asked time
However, after some time the appellant became suspicious and lodged a complaint
against the respondent with the Economic Offences Wing on 21-3-2003. The appellant
submitted that the cause of action has arisen when it filed the complaint against the
respondent with the Economic Offences Wing on 21-3-2003 and, therefore, the claim was
within time and the same is not barred by limitation. The respondent filed his reply and
raised an objection that the claim is barred by time. Apart from other objections which
have been raised by the respondent, the respondent raised the plea of limitation and
submitted that the time prescribed for filing any complaint arising out of a dispute,
redressal of which can be sought from the panel of arbitrators by National Stock
Exchange of India Limited is six months from the date of dispute. In the present dispute
the time started running from the date on which the dispute has arisen.
Issue

Madanjit Kumar vs Central Electronics Ltd And Ors WP(C) 4531/2012

FACTS
The petitioner who is an employee of the respondent No.1/Central Electronics Ltd. seeks
two reliefs by way of this writ petition, the petitioner was removed been engaging
yourself in the business of Pornography, Flesh Trading, Adultery and Human Trafficking
through Internet since long in and around Delhi. The Company, in no way can allow and
afford involvement of any of its officers or employees in such heinous and shameful act
and business while in service of the Company.
ISSUE

Wheather the transfer order and suspension letter of the petitoner stands valid?

HELD
The argument of petitioner is not correct because when we look at the circular, this

circular does not say that transfer should be stopped, what is only stated is that where an
employee has a mentally retarded child, then the employee should be given a choice of
his place for posting. I do not think that medical facilities would not be available in
Bangalore as that city is one of the largest metropolitan cities in the country. Medical
facilities would be almost as good or in about the same type of facilities which would be
available in Delhi. Therefore, the challenge by the petitioner to the suspension order and
the transfer order fails and the writ petition would stand dismissed.

Nasscom vs. Ajay Sood & Others

FACTS
The plaintiff in this case was the National Association of Software and Service
Companies (Nasscom), Indias premier software association. The defendants were
operating a placement agency involved in head-hunting and recruitment. In order to
obtain personal data, which they could use for purposes of headhunting, the defendants
composed and sent e-mails to third parties in the name of Nasscom. The court appointed
a commission to conduct a search at the defendants premises. Two hard disks of the
computers from which the fraudulent e-mails were sent by the defendants to various
parties were taken into custody by the local commissioner appointed by the court. The
offending e-mails were then downloaded from the hard disks and presented as evidence
in court. During the progress of the case, it became clear that the defendants in whose
names the offending e-mails were sent were fictitious identities created by an employee
on defendants instructions, to avoid recognition and legal action. On discovery of this
fraudulent act, the fictitious names were deleted from the array of parties as defendants in
the case.Subsequently, the defendants admitted their illegal acts and the parties settled the
matter through the recording of a compromise in the suit proceedings. According to the
terms of compromise, the defendants agreed to pay a sum of Rs1.6 million to the plaintiff
as damages for violation of the plaintiffs trademark rights. The court also ordered the
hard disks seized from the defendants premises to be handed over to the plaintiff who
would be the owner of the hard disks.
ISSUE
Wheather Phishing in internet was legal act.
HELD
In a landmark judgment in the case of National Association of Software and Service
Companies vs Ajay Sood & Others, delivered in March, 05, the Delhi High Court
declared `phishing on the internet to be an illegal act, entailing an injunction and

recovery of damages.The Delhi HC stated that even though there is no specific legislation
in India to penalise phishing, it held phishing to be an illegal act by defining it under
Indian law as a misrepresentation made in the course of trade leading to confusion as to
the source and origin of the e-mail causing immense harm not only to the consumer but
even to the person whose name, identity or password is misused. The court held the act
of phishing as passing off and tarnishing the plaintiffs image.

Vijay Govind vs State & Anr.CRL.M.C.1635/2013

FACTS
Accused persons had copied the information through pen drive or external hard disc from
the system of the complainant company to their personal system with the objective of
using the same in their own business. The pen drive and external hard disc through which
the accused persons would have used to unauthorizedly copy/download the data is still in
the possession of accused persons and must be recovered During investigation, from the
e-mails recovered, it is found that the newly incorporated company of the accused
persons was dealing with the clients of the complainant company while still in its
employment. The business of the complainant company is such that being a trading
agency it works as mediator/agent between foreign buyers and Indian manufacturers. The
complainant company as well as the company newly incorporated by the Respondents
herein inspect for quality control the goods being manufactured by Indian vendors on
behalf of the foreign buyers. Therefore, the contacts, the data and earned relationships
become highly important.
ISSUE
whether the Trial Court was in any way in error in granting anticipatory bail?
HELD
As regards the submission that most of the witnesses are the employees of the company,
hence, there is likelihood of their being influenced by the respondents being former
employees, the submission does not appear to have substance because the proposed
witnesses are still in the employment of the company, therefore, it is very unlikely that
they will be influenced by the former employees. In any case, it is only a presumption of
the complainant and there is nothing on record to suggest that during the course of
investigation any such instance has come to the notice of the complainant or the
Investigating Agency. Under the circumstances, neither the order of Trial Court granting
anticipatory bail can be said to be perverse nor any cogent or overwhelming
circumstances exists for cancellation of bail.

ARUN JATLEY CASE

FACTS
The plaintiff in this case, Arun Jaitley, is the well known politician and leader of the BJP.
He wished to register the domain www.arunjaitley.combut found that the domain had
already been registered as of the year 2009. The plaintiff sent a letter to Network
Solutions (the 2nd defendant) requesting registration on 16th July, 2009. At the time of
sending this letter to the defendant, the domain name was pending deletion. The next
day he received a reply asking him to purchase the domain name from them, or wait for
the domain to be deleted.
However, two important points need to be mentioned at this point. (1) The domain
www.arunjaitley.com according to the WHOIS report had expired on 12th June, 2009. (2)
According to the Domain Deletion Policy of the defendants, the domain ought to have
been deleted after the expiration of 35 days.
ISSUE
Whether the domain name is protected under the law?
HELD
The court rightly held that domain names are protected under the law of passing off and
personal names constituting domain names would be granted similar protection. Further,
the name is inherently distinctive and being a popular name, deserves trademark
protection. Thus, despite the personal right to use his personal name, the plaintiff
managed to satisfy the court that it is distinctive with sufficient popularity to qualify for
commercial trademark protection. Thus, the court found mala fide intention on the part of
the defendants in trafficking the domain name, with the objective of extracting a hefty
auction price from the plaintiff. It thus granted punitive damages to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs
to the plaintiff for causing hardship and harassment and mental torture to the plaintiff in
getting back the domain name. The court further restrained Portfolio Brains from
adopting, or using the mark in any manner whatsoever in cyberspace. It also directed the
transfer of the said domain to the plaintiff with immediate effect. It made a direction
under the ICANN rules to block the domain name and immediately transfer this domain
name to the plaintiff with requisite charges and formalities and ordered the first two
defendants to co-operate in above actions.

SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra

FACTS
In this case, the defendant Jogesh Kwatra being an employ of the plaintiff company
started sending derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, filthy and abusive emails to his
employers as also to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world with the
aim to defame the company and its Managing Director Mr. R K Malhotra. The plaintiff
filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing his illegal acts
of sending derogatory emails to the plaintiff.
ISSUE
does courr have jurisdiction over a matter where a corporates reputation was being
defamed through emails?
HELD
After hearing detailed arguments of Counsel for Plaintiff, Hon'ble Judge of the Delhi
High Court passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction observing that a prima facie case had
been made out by the plaintiff. Consequently, the Delhi High Court restrained the
defendant from sending derogatory, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating and abusive
emails either to the plaintiffs or to its sister subsidiaries all over the world including their
Managing Directors and their Sales and Marketing departments. Further, Hon'ble Judge
also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting or causing to be published any
information in the actual world as also in cyberspace which is derogatory or defamatory
or abusive of the plaintiffs.
This order of Delhi High Court assumes tremendous significance as this is for the first
time that an Indian Court assumes jurisdiction in a matter concerning cyber defamation
and grants an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from defaming the plaintiffs
by sending derogatory, defamatory, abusive and obscene emails either to the plaintiffs or
their subsidiaries.

Avnish Bajaj vs. State (2005) 3 CompLJ 364 Del

FACTS:
The case involved an IIT Kharagpur student Ravi Raj, who placed on the baazee.com a
listing offering an obscene MMS video clip for sale with the username alice-elec. Despite
the fact that baazee.com have a filter for posting of objectionable content, the listing
nevertheless took place with the description, Item 27877408 DPS Girls having fun!!!
full video + Baazee points. The item was listed online around 8.30 pm in the evening of

November 27th 2004 and was deactivated, around 10 am on 29th November 2004. The
Crime Branch of Delhi police took cognizance of the matter and registered an FIR. Upon
investigation, a charge sheet was filed showing Ravi Raj, Avnish Bajaj, the owner of the
website and Sharat Digumarti, the person responsible for handling the content, as
accused. Since, Ravi Raj absconded; the petition was filed by Avnish Bajaj, seeking the
quashing of the criminal proceedings.
ISSUE

Since the MMS was transferred directly between the seller and buyer without the
intervention of the website, they can at most be responsible for the listing placed
on the website which by itself was not obscene and did not attract the offence
under Section 292/294 IPC or Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act.

Due diligence was taken by the website to immediately remove the video clip
once it was brought to its knowledge that it was objectionable.

The scope of Section 67 of the IT Act is only restricted to publication of obscene

material and does not cover transmission of such material.

HELD
The state contended that the

Offence under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) includes not only overt
acts but illegal omissions within the meaning of Sections 32, 35 and 36 IPC.

The failure to have adequate filter in a system which is entirely automated entails
serious consequences and a website cannot escape such legal consequences.

The fact that payment was made to the seller even as on 27th December 2004
shows that no attempt was made to prevent or stop the commission of the
illegality by the website.

The court observed that a prima facie case for the offence under Section 292 (2) (a) and
292 (2) (d) IPC is made out against the website both in respect of the listing and the video
clip respectively. The court observed that [b]y not having appropriate filters that could
have detected the words in the listing or the pornographic content of what was being
offered for sale, the website ran a risk of having imputed to it the knowledge that such an
object was in fact obscene, and thus it held that as per the strict liability imposed by
Section 292, knowledge of the listing can be imputed to the company.
However, as far as Avnish Bajaj is concerned, the court held that since the Indian Penal
Code does not recognize the concept of an automatic criminal liability attaching to the

director where the company is an accused, the petitioner can be discharged under
Sections 292 and 294 of IPC, but not the other accused.
As regards S. 67, read with Section 85 of the IT Act, the Court however, observed that a
prima facie case was made out against the petitioner Avnish Bajaj, since the law
recognizes the deemed criminal liability of the directors even where the company is not
arraigned as an accused. The judgement however did not declare Avnish Bajaj guilty.