Definition of "Person" under Information Technology Act includes body corporates for adjudication of compensation.

The Appellant (GPL) filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer (AO) in Karnataka on October 28, 2011, seeking compensation of ₹39,00,550 for wrongful loss due to unauthorized access to its banking accounts at Axis Bank.

The complaint alleged contraventions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as amended in 2008.

Respondents (Axis Bank and others) filed Interlocutory Applications challenging the maintainability of the complaint, arguing lack of jurisdiction and that Section 43 of the IT Act applies only to natural persons, not body corporates.

On December 27, 2011, the AO dismissed the proceedings, holding that while it had jurisdiction, Section 43 was wrongly invoked because it relates to a "person" and not a "body corporate," for which Section 43A is the separate provision.

1. Whether the term "person" under Section 43 of the IT Act includes body corporates or is restricted to natural persons.

2. Whether a complaint filed under Section 46 of the IT Act can be dismissed as non-maintainable because it incorrectly cited Section 43 instead of Section 43A.

3. Whether the appeal was maintainable regarding the authority of the Authorized Representative (AR) who filed it.

The Tribunal applied Section 3 of the Central General Clauses Act, 1897, and the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899, which define "person" to include any company or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

It relied on the precedent Telco v. State of Bihar (1964), establishing that a corporation is a legal entity equal to a natural person that can sue and be sued.

The Tribunal further applied the principle from its own precedent, Rajender Prasad Yadav v. ICICI Bank Ltd (2019), which held that Section 46 provides broad jurisdiction to adjudicate violations and a "wrong label" or failure to cite Section 43A does not render a complaint non-maintainable.

Regarding procedure, it noted that procedural technicalities (Order III Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC) should not defeat substantial justice.

The Tribunal reasoned that the AO committed an error of law by interpreting "person" in Section 43 too narrowly. By applying the General Clauses Act, the Tribunal found that a "body corporate" falls within the legal definition of "person".

The Tribunal noted that the complaint was explicitly filed under Section 46, which grants the AO wide powers to enquire into any contravention of the Act; therefore, even if the complainant omitted Section 43A or incorrectly focused on Section 43, the AO had a duty to consider the facts under the appropriate legal provisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Respondents' technical objections regarding the Power of Attorney, noting that a valid special power of attorney and vakalatnama existed, and emphasized that "procedural lapses" should not hinder substantial justice.

It characterized the Bank's defense as "wrong and vexatious" due to the 15-year delay it caused the appellant.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Order dated December 27, 2011; the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Officer with a direction to dispose of the case on merits within six months, and special costs of ₹50,000 were imposed on Axis Bank.