//
archives

rajesh tandon

This tag is associated with 7 posts

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL= any complaint has been filed before the Adjudicating Officer at any point of time as required under Section 46 of the Information Technology Act. On the other hand, any complaint filed before the Controller of Certifying Authorities will not serve the requirement of Section 46 of the Information Tecnology Act. The appellant is required to file a 16 complaint before the Adjudicating Officer who has the jurisdiction for deciding the disputes. This point is decided in negative. Point No.(iii) Relief In view of the aforesaid, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed at the admission stage. However, liberty is given to the appellant to file the complaint within 30 days of this judgment. The Adjudicating Officer shall not debar the appellant from filing a complaint as having been time barred and only the privilege of the time with regard to the pendency of the appeal shall be given automatically. At any stage if the Adjudicating Officer requires the record of the Appellate Authority in connection with the various orders passed from time to time, same may be called for the disposal of the complaint.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 3/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Ms.Aruna Kashinath ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus GMAIL.COM & anr. Respondents Through Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Advo. With Mr.Parveen Sherawat,Advo. & Mr.Akhil Anand,Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=The Adjudicating Officer shall take the matter and permit the complainant to implead (i) CDSL (Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. (ii) BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) and (iii) NSE (National Stock Exchange) as parties. The Adjudicating Officer shall direct the complainant to amend the complaint in accordance with the directions made above and thereafter dispose of the complaint in accordance with law expeditiously. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Officer, Gujarat State for deciding afresh in view of observations made above.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 1/2009 Date of decision May 26,2010 SH. Harish Kumar C.Vakaria …..APPELLANT Through Mr.Manan S.Thakker, Advocate and Mr.Hardik Gupta,Advo Vs M/s India Infoline Ltd.. …..RESPONDENT Through Mr.Y.H.Motiramani,Advo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON 1. Whether the … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=some defamatory, derogatory, humiliative, abusive and obnoxious e-mails from Aruna Kashinath and Avinash Agnihotry from the e-mail IDs kashinath.aruna@gmail.com and avinash.agnihotry@gmail.com respectively. It is pertinent to point out that both Aruna Kashnath and Avinash Agnihotry are part of the top management team of the appellant company. It is further submitted that the appellant has made enquiries from both Aruna Kashinath and Avinash Agnihotry 4 who had flatly refused and denied connection with the aforesaid email accounts or their creation maintenance or with the sending of the aforementioned emails and that list of the e-mails sent through both the aforesaid email addresses as per information received from the investor Greater Pacific Capital, as per details given below:- “EMAILS SENT FROM THE E-MAIL: kashinath.aruna@gmail.com a. Email sent on Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 4.50 AM to Christian Hansmeyer, Ketan patel, Joe Searly, Francis Crispino, with subject entitled “MGL (Mascon) “Gentlemen: I am sending this mail to you in great confidence. I have inside info-mation and personal news on the company’s CEO that I would like to share w=th you if you want. I am doing this because almost 100% of the company’s e=ployees strongly believe that the current ceo and chairman must go immediately if you want to save the compa=y or see anything left behind after his siphoning hundreds of millions and=cooking the books. The board is dummy and dead and you are the only =ope. Please respond to this mail so that we can point you in the right direction in confidence.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 7/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Mascon Global Limited ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus Controller of Certifying Authorities & Others ……. Respondents Through Mr.Vakul Sharma,Advo.with Ms.Seema Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Adv. … Continue reading

the appellant was shocked to receive print outs being copies of the various e-mails apparently sent by the email ID kashinath.aruna@gmail.com. It is stated that the email identity kashinath.aruna@gmail.com is a email account that does not belong to the appellant but has been created in the name of the appellant at the popular email service www.gmail.com.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 5/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Ms.Aruna Kashinath ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus Controller of Certifying Authorities & Others ……. Respondents Through Mr.Vakul Sharma,Advo.with Ms.Seema Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Adv. with … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL= prayed for a direction to respondent No.1, Controller of Certifying Authority to investigate the various contraventions of the provisions of the Information Technology Act,2000 as detailed in the complaint of the applicant to the Controller of Certifying Authority dated 23.9.2009 and further direction to respondents 2 and 3 to assist the respondent No.1 in its investigations of the various contraventions of the provisions of the Information Technology Act,2000, as detailed in the complaint dated 23.9.2009. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is a member of IPAG, the Planning Group of Electronics Commission under the Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India and he has claimed to have contributed to planning of the Indian Electronics Industry. At present he is working at Mascon Global Limited as Senior Vice President. According to the submissions of the appellant, he has received various emails through his employer Mascon Global Limited apparently sent by email ID avinash.agnihotry @ gmail.com. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that some unknown persons have falsely, dishonestly and fraudulently fabricated and created the e-mail ID avinash.agnihotry@gmail.com registered in the name of the appellant by submitting false and 4 mischievous information

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 4/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Dr.Avinash Agnihotry ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus Controller of Certifying Authorities & Others ……. Respondents Through Mr.Vakul Sharma,Advo.with Ms.Seema Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Adv. with … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=praying following directions to respondents to 3 (a) disable access to all content including disabling the said email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com. (b) Further deliver by return email, the identity details of the sender (s) of the aforesaid defamatory and insinuating emails from the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com including the contact number (cell number and email identity), address, telephone number, fax number and other identification details, if any. (c) Provide the complete details pertaining to the technicalities, headers and footers information and comprehensive identification parameters as also the complete computer logs of the entire electronic records and emails generated, sent, received and handled by or on behalf of the actual owner(s)/user(s) of the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com in connection with the subject matter in the present application from the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com, including all electronic records and emails and other electronic communications generated, processed, sent or received therein; (d) Further disclose all the details concerning the true identity and comprehensive identification of the actual owner(s)/user(s) of the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com and all relevant registration information connected therewith and further furnish all traffic data connected with the email account kashinath.aruna@gmail.com. Apart from preserving the same, without any tampering or alteration of any kind whatsoever.Etc.,

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 3/2009 Date of decision May 28,2010 Ms.Aruna Kashinath ……Appellant Through Mr.Pavan Duggal,Advo. With Mrs.Renu Narula,Advocate Versus GMAIL.COM & anr. Respondents Through Mr.Sajan Poovaya,Advo. With Mr.Parveen Sherawat,Advo. & Mr.Akhil Anand,Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON … Continue reading

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=on 18th January,2008 Online Demat Account was opened by India Infoline Ltd. A/C No.1204470001776230 and POA ID was given as VAHARISH. It is stated that ownership of Online Trader Terminal Software was given i.e. access to Online Trader Terminal Software for the said POA ID (Client ID- VAHARISH). On 22nd February,2008, an application was made by the appellant for the Initial Public Offer of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (REC Ltd.) in the name of Harishkumar Chandrakant Vakharia (HUF). Cheque Number was 163127, cheque amount was Rs.94,500/-, Bank name was ICICI Bank, S.G.Road branch and the Bank A/C number was 029501001050 of HUF saving account. Appellant has submitted that on 7th March,2008, Karvy.com displayed allotment of 121 (amount Rs.12,705/-) shares of REC Ltd. and remaining amount of Rs.81,795/- came to be credited into the above mentioned bank account. It is further submitted that the said shares were not credited in the appellant’s Online Demat Account after they were allotted. A message was alleged to have been displayed that Online Demat Account is closed.

CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 1/2009 Date of decision May 26,2010 SH. Harish Kumar C.Vakaria …..APPELLANT Through Mr.Manan S.Thakker, Advocate and Mr.Hardik Gupta,Advo Vs M/s India Infoline Ltd.. …..RESPONDENT Through Mr.Y.H.Motiramani,Advo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,297 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com