GUJARAT PETROSYNTHESE LIMITED vs AXIS BANK AND OTHERS

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
th
Dated 27 May 2026
Cyber Appeal No. 1 of 2012

M/s Gujarat Petrosynetheses Ltd. … Appellant
Vs.
Axis Bank Ltd. and others …Respondents

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate
For Respondents : Dr. Abhimanyu Chopra and Mr. Kushagra Jain,
Advocates For R-1 to 7 and R-10 to 12
Ms. Shreya Pathak for Kotak Bank
Ms. Vasudha Arora for HDFC Bank

JUDGMENT
1. This Cyber Appeal, under Section 57 of IT Act, 2000, has been filed
by Appellant – Complainant, Gujarat Petrosynthese Limited (GPL)
against Axis Bank Ltd. and Others- Respondents-Opposite parties,

2

in main complaint, against the impugned order, dated 27.12.2011,
passed by Learned Adjudicating Officer, Principal Secretary to
Government of State of Karnataka, in Complaint under Section 43
of IT Act, 2000, with a prayer for allowing this appeal, thereby
setting aside Impugned Order of Learned Adjudicator, and remand
the matter to adjudicator, to continue the adjudication process for
expeditious disposal, as per principles and procedure provided for
in the Information Technology Act, 2008 and accompanying rules.

2. In brief, memo of appeal, contends that Appellant had
approached Learned Adjudicating Authority i.e., Principal
Secretary to Government, Department of Information and
Technology, Government of State of Karnataka, on 28.10.2011,
with an application, under Section 46 of IT Act, 2000, as amended
by IT Amendment Act, 2008, for having compensation for its
suffering of wrongful loss of Rs. 39,00,550/-, on account of certain
contraventions of Information Technology Act, 2008, by the 12
Respondents, arrayed as opposite parties, in above complaint. The
adjudication application also stated the reasons, why each of
Respondents could be considered, as jointly and severely liable, to

3

pay compensation to the applicant, and providing other details,
including certain documents, related to RBI Guidelines, National
and International case laws etc. Opposite parties i.e, Axis bank,
ING Vysya Bank, and HDFC Bank, were represented and others
were not present. Axis Bank submitted two Interlocutory
Applications. Firstly, seeking time for filing the reply and then
objecting the proceedings and arguing that the application was
not sustainable. ING Vysya Bank also submitted its reply, claiming
it’s no liability, under Section 43 of IT Act.

3. This appeal, is not, however, made in respect of any of the
substantive points, mentioned either in Complaint, or in respect of
reply, filed by opposite party, because the Impugned Order is not
with application of Judicial mind, nor is on merit on these facts
under dispute. Rather, the Impugned Order, on which this appeal
is filed, is on specific ground on which the adjudication application
has been held, as not maintainable, in the Impugned Order, and
this was with reference to the two points, raised by Axis Bank, in
its Interlocutory Application, namely, Lack of Jurisdiction, and
Non-maintainability of this complaint/ adjudication application,

4

under Section 43 and 43 A, where Corporate persons were
involved, either as a Complainant or the accused.

4. The two Interlocutory Applications, submitted by Axis Bank, on
behalf of Respondents 1 to 7 and 12 to 14, were considered by the
adjudicator, and the Impugned Order, against which the appeal
rests, referred to these two Interlocutory Applications. Hence, this
Appeal is restricted to those two points only.

5. In these Interlocutory Applications, Axis Bank disputed the
Jurisdiction of the Adjudicator, to continue the proceedings and
raised objection to the Sustainability of the proceedings under
Section 43 of the ITA, 2008. Learned Adjudicating Officer, vide its
Impugned Order, dated 27.12.2011, held the contention of Axis
Bank with regard to jurisdiction, not with any ground, and this
objection was over-ruled. Meaning thereby, jurisdiction of
Learned Adjudication Officer was held to be there.

6. With regard to second objection, Learned Adjudicating Officer
held:

5

“However the contention of the respondent that the complainant
has wrongly invoked Section 43 seeking adjudication and
compensation under Section 46 of IT Act does hold water. Section
43 of the Act relates to a person and not a body corporate. The IT
Amendment Act of 2008 has made a separate provision for a body
corporate to seek compensation. In the instant case both the
Complainant company and the Respondent bank are body
Corporates”, and accordingly, the proceeding was ended.


7. This finding and conclusion of Learned Adjudicating Officer, was
not tenable in law and was in violation of well known mandatory
principle of law in India. As per General Clauses Act, 1897,
(Annexure VI) to memo of appeal, as well as Karnataka General
Clauses Act 1899 (Annexure VII), which provide clear,
unmistakable and mandatory guidelines to Judicial authorities on
how to interpret the term “person”. “Section 3 of the Central and
State General Clauses Act state that the term “person” includes
any company or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not.” This alone is sufficient to determine that the
subject order is bad in law and needs to be set aside. Even under

6

Indian Companies Act, a registered corporate entity is considered
a ‘Legal Person’, which is distinct from its Directors as well as
Shareholders, and this Company, as a Legal Person is an entity,
which can sue and can be sued upon its own name. Hon’ble Apex
Court in Telco Vs. State of Bihar (1964) 34 Com Cases 458: AIR
1965 SC 40 observed “ … The Corporation in law is equal to a
natural person and has a legal entity of its own … it bears its own
name and has a seal of its own …… it can sue and be sued
exclusively for its own purpose; ...”

8. In present case, both that is, the Complainant, namely Gujarat
Petrosynthese Ltd., as well as Respondent - Axis Bank & Other
Banks, named as Respondents are entities, who can sue and can
be sued, upon in their respective names. Hence, IT Act, 2008,
does not provide a separate definition for ‘Person’ under Section 2
of the Act. Rather, it is for both natural as well as legal person, as
is apparent from subsequent Sections too. Hence, this Appeal with
above prayer.

9. Learned Counsel for Axis Bank i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and for
other Banks i.e., Respondent Nos. 9 – 12, has objected this Appeal

7

on two fold. One, is on ‘technical ground’ and the other, is on
‘merit’ . The very objection is with regard to competence of the
person, who has filed this Complaint, before Adjudicating Officer,
as well as before this Appellate Tribunal. The Authorized
Representative (AR), by way of Power of Attorney, dated
01.12.2011, has assumed the role of both the authorized signatory
for the Appellant, as well as its pleader. Whereas, the said power
of attorney does not even provide the authorised representative,
with the power/ authority to act or argue the captioned matter,
before this Appellate Tribunal. As per settled law, unless a
Company specifically confers power, to institute a suit on a
Director, by way of a Board Resolution, the Director will not have
authority to institute the suit. Hence, this Complaint, before
Learned Adjudicating Officer, as well as this Appeal, before this
Appellate Tribunal, is not maintainable, on account of absence of
valid authority, with the authorized representative. Moreover, the
appeal is also not maintainable, since AR is not a legal practitioner,
under Advocates Act, 1961. Hence, in absence of permission, or
an application, before this Appellate Tribunal, AR is in violation of
Section 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

8

10. Section 43 applies to a person “who is in charge of a computer,
computer system or computer network” whereas, Section 43A,
specifically introduced, subsequently, by way of an amendment, in
the IT Act in 2008, and addresses a “body corporate” and deals
with compensation for failure to protect, sensitive personal data.
Therefore, clear intention of the legislature, is to create a
difference between a ‘natural person’ and a ‘juristic person’ (a
body corporate). Since, the appeal is qua a ‘body corporate’,
Section 43 is not the appropriate provision, to file the complaint,
and on this ground alone, the present Appeal, ought to be
dismissed. The intent of legislature is also evident from the
criminal implication of offences, as per Chapter IX of the IT Act,
committed under Section 43, of the IT Act. The fact that such
criminal implications, cannot be levied upon a ‘body corporate’
substantiates the submission set forth, hereinabove. Per contra,
Section 43A solely provides for compensation (as is the only
logical and possible implication qua ‘body corporates’). Therefore,
introduction of Section 43A, by way of amendment, in IT Act,
2008, was clearly to introduce, a separate and distinct provision,

9

to deal with ‘body corporates’, and on this ground alone, the
present Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. At the outset, the Appellant has preferred a limited appeal and
effectively has only sought remand of the matter, before the AO,
as it is aggrieved by the Impugned Order, and nothing more.
Whereas, by way of an early hearing application, it has been
pleaded, for making a case on merit, which was beyond the scope
of appeal, hence, it ought to be disregarded in its entirety. The law
mentioned, in written submission, by the Appellant, are with
different set of facts and not applicable to present one. Hence, the
maintainability has been disputed, and the merit of Appeal is also
not in favour of Appellant.

12. Heard Learned Counsels for both side and gone through the
materials placed on record.

13. From the vary perusal of Complaint filed, before adjudicator of
Karnataka, Office of the Principal Secretary, Department of IT,
Government of Karnataka, it is apparent that it is an application
for adjudication, under Information Technology Act, 2000, as

10

amended by Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, by
Gujarat Petrosynthese Limited, No. 24, II Main, Doddanekkundi
Industrial Area, Phase I, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore. Meaning
thereby, this was with no specific Section, as to whether under
Section 43 or 43A of the IT Act, or whether in old Act or in
Amended IT Act. Rather, it was with specific mention of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, the old one and Information
Technology Act, 2008 i.e., Amended one, and this was for
adjudication and compensation, for the alleged wrong committed
by opposite parties, with regard to derogation of IT Provisions and
Rules framed thereunder.


14. The Complaint had been filed for adjudication under Section 46 of
Information Technology Act, 2000, as amended by the
Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, hereinafter
referred to as IT Act, 2008 (1) and as per guidelines contained
under notification No. GSR 220 (E) dated 17.03.2003 and GSR 240
(E) dated 25.03.2003 of Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology, Government of India, with a specific
contention that the Complainant is a Public Limited Company,
having its Head Office as well as Registered Office, detailed in this

11

Complaint at Mumbai and Bangalore, and it maintained the
banking accounts with Axis Bank at Marathahalli, and this
complaint refers to the unauthorized access to the information,
residing inside the computer systems, attributable to Axis Bank,
having its branch Office at site No. 43, Varthur Main Road,
Marathahalli, Bangalore, and resulting in a wrongful loss to this
Company. All instructions regarding the disputed transactions in
Complainants account referred to in this application, were passed
with electronic documents delivered to Axis Bank, Marathahalli
and carried out by the electronic documents attributable to them.

15. The contraventions of Section 43, as well as other Sections of IT
Act, 2008 have occurred on 20.06.2011, causing wrongful loss to
the complainant, to the extent of Rs. 39,00,550/- of which Rs.
35,44,400.01/- remains unrecovered. Hence, this incident was
within the sole jurisdiction of Adjudicator of Karnataka, by virtue
of Section 46 and Section 61 of IT Act, 2008. Hence, this Complaint
was got filed and this was with a specific mention in its Part IV
detailed that “ This complaint has been made under provisions of
Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 as per details

12

provided under Part VIII ”. Part V is with specific mention of time
of contravention and it was given to June 20, 2011, when this
amended IT Act, 2008 was in operation. Place of contravention in
Part VI and cause of action in Part VII, is with specific mention that
the cause of action was the contravention of some provision of
Information Technology Act, 2008, and it occurred the wrongly
loss to Complainant. It was because of the contravention of IT Act,
2008, and was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 5 Crores,
and territorial jurisdiction of Adjudication Officer of State of
Karnataka and there was a bar of any Civil Court, as per Section 61
of the IT Act, 2008, hence, the complaint was got filed, against the
opposite parties.

16. The specific mention is that the financial loss had occurred to
Complainant, because of unauthorized access to the Information
System, owned and maintained by Axis Bank, in contravention of
Section 43(a) of the IT Act, 2008, causing damage to the electronic
information (viz: Credit balance standing to complainant’s credit),
residing inside the Axis Bank’s Computer System, [Section 43 (f) of
ITA 2008]. Assistance by Axis Bank and its staff to some unknown

13

person, to un-authorisedly enter the Bank’s system, and make
changes in the information, issue instructions for fund transfer,
and also to let some unknown person, withdrew the proceeds of
the fraud in other places. [under Section 43 (g) of the IT Act,
2008]. Diligence and its lack i.e., defiance by the beneficiary banks
i.e., Indus Ind Bank, ING Vysya Bank, HDFC Bank, Standard
Chartered Bank and Canara Bank, as well as suffering Bank, Axis
Bank. Thereby manipulating and insecuring the information and
data base of complainant, in its system has been complained in it.
Hence, the very conclusion of learned Adjudicatory Authority that
the contention of Axis Bank hold water, on the point that the
complainant had wrongly invoked section 43, seeking adjudication
and compensation under section 46 of IT Act, does hold water.
Section 43 of IT Act relates to the person and not the body
corporate. The IT Amendment Act of 2008 had made a separate
provision for body corporate to seek compensation. In the instant
case, both the complainant company and the respondent bank, is
a body corporate, is a cryptic finding with no reasons, which is
against the facts on record.

14

17. The complaint itself is with specific mention of section 43 A of IT
Act, alongwith other regulations directions given under it at
different times. Hence, it can never be concluded that it was
complaint under section 43 of old Act. The Tribunal in its
judgment, given in CA No. 2 of 2012, Rajender Prasad Yadav Vs
ICICI Bank Ltd, delivered on 18.7.2019, wherein, the bone of
contention was that in complaint No. 15 of 2011, preferred by
appellant - Rajender Prasad Yadav, against the respondent - ICICI
Bank Ltd. and some others, Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Information Technology, Government of
Karnataka/Adjudicating Officer, decided to reject the complaint
as not maintainable and held that section 43 of IT Act is not
applicable to a body corporate, such as the respondent bank, after
IT Amendment Act 2008, came into force. But, this Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Tribunal has held :
“On going through the relevant provisions of the IT Act carefully,
we find that the Ld. AO has committed error of law in holding the
complaint to be not maintainable. The complaint in the very first
line mentions that it has been filed for adjudication under section
46 of the IT Act. It is also clearly mentioned that several
contraventions of section 43 as well as other sections of IT Act

15

have occurred on different dates causing wrongful loss to the
extent of Rs. 4,14,122/- of which Rs. 3,91,210/- remains
unrecovered.
The jurisdiction to adjudicate and enquire vested under section 46
of the IT Act is wide enough to make the complaint maintainable.
The power to enquire and adjudicate has been given to a senior
and responsible officer so that misdeeds amounting to violation
of provisions of the Act may be thoroughly examined and do not
go unpunished. This jurisdiction can not get curtailed/ limited
even if the complainant wrongly labels its complaint petition
grievances. But fortunately, in this case, jurisdiction was clearly
invoked under section 46. The complainant may not be aware of
section 43A having already come in the statute book in October
2009, but it was the duty of AO to take that into consideration if
the facts of the case so required. But this was not done possibly
because at the outset, the AO held the complaint as not
maintainable. It may be one thing to hold in the facts of a
particular case that section 43 of the IT Act is not attracted
against a particular body corporate but as a general principle of
law it would be an error of law to say that the word “person”
mentioned in section 43 cannot cover a body corporate and a
bank.
We have gone through the provisions of section 85, section 79
and section 66 on which learned counsel for the respondent has
placed reliance and find that those provisions do not lend any
support to the views taken by the AO and are not relevant for

16

deciding the question of law that has been decided by the Ld. AO
but wrongly we find merit in submissions advanced on behalf of
appellant. Hence, the impugned order is set aside by holding that
the complaint cannot be dismissed as not maintainable and a
body corporate such as the respondent bank can well be
within the purview of the IT Act, as explained earlier.
It is unfortunate that the complainant has remained deprived of
an appropriate order on his complaint for such long years. Hence,
while remitting back to the Ld. AO, we direct that the complaint
should be considered on merits expeditiously so as to take a final
decision within three months from the date of production or
communication of the copy of this order. The bank in our
considered view, took a wrong and vexatious defence of
jurisdiction and maintainability and that has led to this appeal.
Hence, while allowing the appeal, we also allow a cost of Rs.
75,000/- in favour of the complainant. That shall be paid by the
bank to the complainant within one month.”

18. Hence, this law of this Tribunal is a precedent for this proceeding,
and the same question of fact and law, which is in present appeal,
was there in above decided appeal, wherein above law has been
propounded.

17

19. With regard to ‘technical objection’ , Hon’ble Supreme Court as
well as Hon’ble Courts, in catena of judgments have propounded
that the justice need not to be done away, on the basis of
procedural lapses. Rather, the procedural lapses and the
technicalities, the procedure are the hand made of justice and the
substantial justice is to be given considering the procedures,
which are the hand made of substantial justice. Learned counsel
of bank, in its written submission, has vehemently pressed Order
III Rule 1 of CPC, which provides that “Appearances, etc., may be
in person, or by recognized agent or by pleader.— Any appearance,
application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law
to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where
otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force,
be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent,
or by a pleader 1 [appearing, applying or acting, as the case may
be,] on his behalf : Provided that any such appearance shall, if the
Court so directs, be made by the party in person. Sub Rule (2)
provides “2. Recognised agents provides for (a) persons holding
powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such
appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties; (b)

18

persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of
parties etc. etc.”


20. In the present case, the thrust of the argument is that authorised
representative, by way of Power of Attorney dated 1.12.2011, has
assumed the role of both the authorised signatory for the
appellant, as well as its pleader, whereas, the said power of
attorney, does not even provide the AR with the power / authority
to act or argue the captioned matter, before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
The law has been pressed by counsel. But, in the present case,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant is with authority to
appear because of the fact of vakalatnama got executed in his
favour and along with the memo of appeal a special power of
attorney, for and on behalf of M/s Gujarat Petrosynetheses Ltd.,
has been filed appointing Mr. Na. Vijayshankar, as special power
of attorney holder. This authorisation to Na. Vijayshankar for this
appellant company is by authorised signatory Mr. Urmi N Prasad,
in the presence of two witnesses before Government Notary of
Government of India. Hence, the person who had filed this appeal,
before this Tribunal, is the special power of attorney holder, in

19

whose favour special power of attorney, got executed for and on
behalf of appellant company, by its authorised signatory Mr. Urmi
N Prasad. Hence, this ‘technical objection’ is of no force.


21. The complaint too, was filed before learned Adjudicating Officer
by the same, Mr. Urmi N Prasad, who was the authorised
representative of complainant company. Moreso, such technical
requirement may be filed, in case of objection, at any stage of the
trial. This has been propounded at many times by Hon’ble Courts,
and for this lack or delay, the substantial justice is not to be
denied, though in present case, the very argument of counsel for
Axis Bank is with no substance. The law pressed, as precedents by
learned counsel for banks, are with different facts and passed
under different set of facts and circumstances, but law of this
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Tribunal, is with specific substances,
alike the present one, written as above. Hence, this appeal, merits
to allowed, with special cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be borne by
opposite party, Axis Bank and paid to appellant.

20

22. The complainant - appellant had suffered a lot since 2011 uptil
now, on the ground of objections raised by Axis Bank, before
Learned Adjudicating Officer with regard to ‘technical objections’,
which were of no force, in law and the cryptic finding with the
conclusion drawn by Learned Adjudicating Officer, with no reason
for this decision, compelled this victim to run from pillar to post,
since 2011 to this 2026 year, and under alike circumstances, this
Tribunal vide, its Hon’ble Division Bench judgment cited, as above,
had imposed Rs. 75,000/- cost, over the bank. Hence, this
imposition of Rs. 50,000/- is being made, as above.

Order

Appeal is being allowed with a special cost of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees
Fifty Thousand only), to be paid by Axis Bank, to complainant/appellant
within two months of judgment. The impugned order of learned
Adjudicating Officer is being set aside. The file is being remanded back
to learned adjudicating officer with a direction to adjudicate the matter,
as per law and procedure, within stipulated period of six months, from
the date of communication / receipt of this order of Appellate Court.

21

Both side counsels are in attendance. They are aware of this
judgment and directions. Hence, ought to get the case decided in above
period by their full cooperation to learned Adjudicating Officer.



….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
27.05.2026
/NC/