ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> India Law & Tech

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: India Law & Tech

burn after reading

By Apar Gupta

ADVERTISEMENTS

The door to the walk-in vault in the Winona Sa...
Image via Wikipedia

On any given day I am offered a Russian mail order bride, Viagra Prozac and other controlled drugs from Canadian pharmacies, win a billion Euros in a British lottery and asked for assistance to set up a fund transfer for the progeny of deposed despots from Nigeria. Beyond this spam, once a month I also receive an email from my bank, which informs me of my account statement.

Cyber criminals realising the shift of financial services from brick and mortar buildings to the internet pipes are no longer content with defrauding me of my money on promises of getting me married, high and rich. They have devised of sophisticated and ingenious ways, in which a well disguised email is ostensibly sent from my bank asking for my account information. If I fall for this scam, soon my funds are frequently transferred out of my account. This happens often in India where financial services are increasingly rendered on the internet. Till recently there was an absence of adjudication on this issue.

This has changed with the decision of the Adjudicating Officer of Judicature at Chennai, in Shri Umashankar Sivasubramanian v. ICICI Bank (Petition No. 2462/2008). The case was filed under Section 43 read with section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 whereby the Petitioner complained of an illegal transfer of funds from his account in the respondent bank, based on the negligence of the respondent bank. The judgment makes for an interesting read with arguments as to the jurisdictional competence of the adjudicating officer as well as the substantive wrongs alleged by the petitioner under the Infromation Technology Act. The adjudicating officer finally determines that the respondent bank is liable to pay the petitioner a tidy amount of 12 lacs rupees.

A copy of the judgment can be accessed by clicking here.

P.s. The reason I do not use the term of art, “phishing” throughout this post is that I find it phonetically irritating. A hat-tip goes across to Naavi for providing the link to the judgment.

Full post as published by India Law & Tech on April 18, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0123 secs (new cache)