1. Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner, ILR 2005 KAR 2210

Short Intro

This case, decided by the Karnataka High Court, is a landmark under Indian IT law addressing the classification of Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) as “computers” for sales tax purposes under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. It interprets the definition of “computer” under Section 2(1)(i) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in a taxation context.

Key Facts

Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing and selling ATMs, sold these machines to banks in Karnataka. The Commercial Taxes Department classified ATMs as “electronic goods” under Entry 29 of Part H of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, imposing a higher tax rate of 15%. Diebold appealed, arguing that ATMs qualified as “computers” or “computer peripherals” under Entry 20 of Part C, attracting a lower rate of 4%. The Advance Ruling Authority ruled against Diebold, leading to this High Court appeal.

Key Issues

• Whether an ATM falls within the statutory definition of a “computer” or “computer system” under the IT Act, 2000, for the purpose of sales tax classification.

• The appropriate tax entry and rate applicable to ATMs as high-speed data processing devices performing logical and arithmetic functions.

Key Decision

The Karnataka High Court held that ATMs constitute “computers” under the IT Act’s broad definition, as they process data electronically and perform banking functions like authentication and transaction recording. Consequently, they were classified under Entry 20 of Part C, eligible for the lower 4% tax rate. The court emphasized the functional similarity of ATMs to computers, setting a precedent for taxing emerging technologies.

2. Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd Vs Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2008 (38) PTC 288 (Del)

Short Intro

This Delhi High Court decision is a seminal case on jurisdiction in trademark passing-off actions involving the internet, clarifying when courts can grant ex parte injunctions against online infringement under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Key Facts

Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd., a Singapore-based company owning the “Banyan Tree” trademark for spa and hospitality services, operated 15 spas in India without local trademark registration. It discovered defendants A. Murali Krishna Reddy and AKR Inns Pvt. Ltd. using an identical mark and device on their website (banyantreehotels.net), which was accessible in Delhi. Banyan Tree filed a suit in Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction for passing off, alleging the defendants’ site targeted Indian users and traded on its reputation.

Key Issues

• Whether mere accessibility of an infringing website in the forum jurisdiction (Delhi) constitutes a “cause of action” for filing a passing-off suit.

• The threshold for granting ex parte interim relief in cross-border online trademark disputes, balancing territorial jurisdiction with global internet reach.

Key Decision

The court ruled that passive website accessibility alone does not confer jurisdiction; there must be evidence of intentional targeting of the forum’s audience or demonstrable harm/reputation spillover in that jurisdiction. It denied the ex parte injunction but allowed the suit to proceed on merits, establishing the “group of websites” or “targeting” test for online IP jurisdiction. This framework has influenced subsequent cases on e-commerce trademark enforcement.

3. P R Transport Agency v. Union of India, AIR 2006 All 23

Short Intro

This Allahabad High Court judgment is the first Indian ruling on jurisdiction in electronic contracts, interpreting Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to determine the “place” of contract formation in e-auctions.

Key Facts

P R Transport Agency participated in an e-auction conducted by Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (a Union of India undertaking) on its website for coal transportation contracts. The petitioner won the bid, but the contract was cancelled due to a procedural error favoring a higher bidder. P R Transport filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the cancellation, while the respondents argued no cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh (the court’s jurisdiction).

Key Issues

• The situs (location) of an electronic contract under Section 13(3) of the IT Act, 2000, particularly where acceptance is communicated via the internet.

• Whether the petitioner’s location (Uttar Pradesh) or the auction server’s location constitutes the place where the cause of action arises for jurisdictional purposes.

Key Decision

The court held that in e-contracts, the place of acceptance is where the acceptance is received by the offeror, as per Section 13(3) of the IT Act. Since the petitioner’s bid acceptance was deemed received at its Uttar Pradesh location, the cause of action arose there, conferring jurisdiction on the Allahabad High Court. The writ was allowed, quashing the cancellation and directing re-auction consideration.

4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Short Intro

This landmark Supreme Court of India decision, delivered by a nine-judge bench, recognizes the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, arising from the Aadhaar biometric identification scheme’s challenges.

Key Facts

Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy filed a public interest litigation in 2012 challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which mandates biometric data collection for welfare benefits and services. Petitioners argued it violated privacy by enabling state surveillance without adequate safeguards. The government defended Aadhaar as voluntary and essential for direct benefit transfers, referring the matter to a larger bench to revisit earlier rulings denying privacy as a fundamental right.

Key Issues

• Whether the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• The scope of privacy in the digital age, including data protection, informational autonomy, and state intrusions via schemes like Aadhaar.

Key Decision

Unanimously, the Supreme Court declared privacy a fundamental right protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21, overturning prior precedents like M.P. Sharma (1954). It imposed a three-fold test for restrictions: legality, necessity, and proportionality. While upholding Aadhaar’s core in a later verdict, this ruling laid the foundation for India’s data privacy framework, influencing the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act.

5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523

Short Intro

This Supreme Court judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional, marking a pivotal win for free speech online in India.

Key Facts

Law student Shreya Singhal filed a writ petition under Article 32 after incidents like the arrest of a Pune professor for sharing a cartoon critical of Maharashtra’s chief minister and a girl in Thane for protesting on Facebook. These stemmed from Section 66A, which penalized “grossly offensive” or “menacing” online messages. The petition also challenged Sections 69A (blocking websites) and 79 (intermediary liability).

Key Issues

• Whether Section 66A violates Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) by being vague, overbroad, and chilling legitimate expression.

• The balance between intermediary safe harbors under Section 79 and government blocking powers under Section 69A.

Key Decision

The court struck down Section 66A entirely, deeming it unconstitutional for its vagueness and disproportionate impact on free speech, as it failed the Article 19(2) restrictions test. Section 69A was upheld with safeguards (e.g., hearing affected parties), and Section 79 was read down to require court/government orders for content takedowns. This decision curbed arbitrary online censorship and protected digital dissent.

6. Avnish Bajaj vs State (N.C.T.) Of Delhi, (2005) 3 CompLJ 364 Del

Short Intro

This Delhi High Court bail petition is India’s first major case on intermediary liability under the Information Technology Act, 2000, arising from the infamous DPS MMS scandal involving an e-commerce platform.

Key Facts

An IIT Kharagpur student, Ravi Raj, uploaded a listing on Baazee.com (an eBay subsidiary) offering an obscene MMS video clip of a DPS school scandal for sale under a fake username. The clip sold multiple times before removal. Delhi Police arrested Baazee’s CEO, Avnish Bajaj, and manager Sharat Digumarti under Sections 292 (obscenity) and 67 (IT Act) IPC, despite no direct involvement. Bajaj sought anticipatory bail, arguing intermediary non-liability.

Key Issues

• The extent of criminal liability for online platforms hosting user-generated content under Sections 67 and 85 of the IT Act.

• Whether intermediaries like Baazee qualify for safe harbor protections, and the adequacy of post-listing removal in mitigating liability.

Key Decision

The court granted anticipatory bail to Bajaj, observing that platforms are not publishers of third-party content and should not be vicariously liable if they act promptly on complaints. It highlighted gaps in the IT Act’s intermediary provisions (later addressed in 2008 amendments), emphasizing due diligence requirements. The ruling set early precedents for e-commerce accountability without stifling innovation.

7. A&M Records Inc vs Napster Inc, 239 F 3d 1004 (9th Cir 2001)

Short Intro

This U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is a foundational copyright case on peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing technology, holding Napster liable for facilitating mass infringement of musical works.

Key Facts

Napster, Inc. operated a free P2P service allowing users to share MP3 files, leading to widespread unauthorized distribution of copyrighted songs owned by plaintiffs like A&M Records. Record labels sued for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. The district court issued a preliminary injunction shutting down Napster’s service after finding actual knowledge of infringement and failure to act. Napster appealed, claiming fair use and lack of direct control.

Key Issues

• Whether Napster’s facilitation of user file-sharing constitutes contributory (knowledge + inducement) and vicarious (financial benefit + ability to supervise) infringement.

• The applicability of fair use doctrine to P2P technology and the scope of the preliminary injunction.

Key Decision

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction, ruling Napster liable for both contributory and vicarious infringement due to its actual knowledge, promotion of infringing use, and profits from subscriptions/advertising without reasonable filtering. It rejected fair use claims, as sharing displaced music sales. The decision forced Napster’s shutdown and pivot to licensed services, shaping global P2P liability standards like those in MGM v. Grokster.

8. Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC

Short Intro

This Supreme Court judgment provides guidelines for using electronic evidence and videography in criminal investigations under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, emphasizing technology’s role in transparency.

Key Facts

Shafhi Mohammad was arrested in a liquor smuggling case in Himachal Pradesh. During his Special Leave Petition against lower court orders, the court took suo motu notice of the need for videography in probes, especially under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case highlighted inconsistencies in admitting electronic records like CCTV footage without Section 65B certificates.

Key Issues

• The mandatory nature of the Section 65B certificate for admissibility of electronic evidence.

• Guidelines for mandatory videography of crime scenes, searches, and seizures to prevent tampering and ensure fair trials.

Key Decision

The court held that the Section 65B certificate is a procedural safeguard but not always mandatory if authenticity is otherwise proven (e.g., via oral evidence). It issued binding guidelines for videographing investigations (e.g., using body cameras) and uploading records to the National Legal Services Authority portal. This ruling promotes digital evidence reliability, though later cases like Ritesh Sinha (2019) refined it to make certificates mandatory in certain scenarios.