⚖️
CyberLaw
Academy
📝 Module 7 Assessment
Civil Remedies in Cyber Matters
100 Questions • 90 Minutes • 70% Passing
100
Questions
90
Minutes
70%
Passing
10
Parts
10
Per Part
Part 7.1 — S.46 Foundation (Q1-10)
1
Section 43 IT Act deals with:
Criminal offences
Civil contraventions — penalty and compensation
Blocking websites
Intermediary liability
Section 43 establishes civil liability for contraventions.
2
Section 43(b) covers:
Unauthorized downloading, copying, extracting data
Introducing virus
Denial of service
Source code theft
S.43(b) covers downloading, copying, extracting without permission.
3
Adjudicating Officer rank:
Under Secretary
Deputy Secretary
Director to GoI or equivalent
Joint Secretary
Section 46 specifies not below Director rank.
4
Section 43A applies to:
Individuals only
Government only
Intermediaries only
Body corporate negligent with sensitive data
S.43A creates liability for negligent body corporates.
5
Civil proceedings burden:
Beyond reasonable doubt
Preponderance of probability
Clear and convincing
No standard
Civil uses preponderance/balance of probability.
6
NASSCOM v. Ajay Sood significance:
First civil cyber case; phishing declared illegal
Criminal conviction
S.66A validity
Safe harbor
First major civil cyber case establishing phishing as illegal tort.
7
Section 43(j) covers:
Unauthorized access
Virus
Source code theft/alteration
DoS
S.43(j) deals with source code theft, concealment, alteration.
8
AO territorial jurisdiction:
Only computer location
Only victim residence
Only accused residence
Computer OR contravention OR victim location
S.46(2) provides multiple bases for jurisdiction.
9
Appeal from AO to:
High Court
TDSAT under Section 57
Supreme Court
District Court
Section 57 provides appeal to TDSAT.
10
Civil vs Criminal — civil advantage:
Complainant controls; faster compensation
Imprisonment possible
Police investigation
Higher burden
Civil gives complainant control and faster compensation.
Part 7.2 — Adjudicating Officers (Q11-20)
11
AO max compensation:
₹1 Crore
₹5 Crore
₹10 Crore
Unlimited
AO can award up to ₹5 crore compensation.
12
Appeal limitation to TDSAT:
30 days
60 days
90 days
45 days
Section 57 provides 45 days limitation.
13
S.65B certificate is:
Optional
Mandatory for electronic evidence
Only criminal
Not required before AO
S.65B certificate is mandatory for admissibility.
14
AO has powers of:
Criminal court
Police
Civil court under CPC
Arbitrator only
S.46(3) grants civil court powers to AO.
15
Anvar P.V. held:
65B certificate mandatory — no waiver
65B optional
Oral evidence sufficient
Hash alone sufficient
SC held 65B certificate is mandatory condition.
16
Respondent reply time:
7 days
15 days
60 days
30 days typically
Respondent typically gets 30 days for reply.
17
AO can appoint:
Police investigator
Technical expert
Private detective
Foreign expert only
AO can engage technical experts for complex issues.
18
Compensation heads include:
Only direct
Only punitive
Direct + restoration + interruption + consequential
Fixed statutory
Multiple heads: direct, restoration, interruption, consequential.
19
AO acts in capacity:
Quasi-judicial
Executive only
Legislative
Advisory
AO acts in quasi-judicial capacity.
20
Claim above ₹5 Cr goes to:
AO still
Civil Court with jurisdiction
TDSAT directly
Supreme Court
Claims above ₹5 Cr exceed AO jurisdiction.
Part 7.3 — TDSAT Appeals (Q21-30)
21
S.57 limitation:
30 days
45 days
60 days
90 days
Section 57 provides 45 days from receipt of order.
22
Extension possible by:
Further 45 days for sufficient cause
Unlimited
No extension
30 days only
TDSAT can condone delay up to further 45 days.
23
TDSAT location:
Mumbai
Bangalore
New Delhi
Each State
TDSAT is centralized in New Delhi.
24
Appeal from TDSAT to:
High Court
AO
Central Govt
Supreme Court under S.62
Section 62 provides appeal to Supreme Court.
25
Stay requires:
Only request
Prima facie + deposit + balance
Automatic
Respondent consent
Stay requires showing prima facie case, deposit, balance of convenience.
26
CAT merged with TDSAT in:
2017
2008
2020
2000
Cyber Appellate Tribunal merged with TDSAT in 2017.
27
Writ against TDSAT:
Lies to HC
Lies to DC
Not maintainable — SC appeal is remedy
Only Delhi HC
TDSAT orders appealable to SC — writ not maintainable.
28
Who can file TDSAT appeal:
Only complainant
Only respondent
Only Government
Any person aggrieved
S.57 allows any aggrieved person to appeal.
29
TDSAT disposal time:
1-2 months
6-12 months
3-5 years
Immediate
TDSAT typically disposes in 6-12 months.
30
Quantum error means:
Compensation excessive or inadequate
Wrong forum
No hearing
Wrong law
Quantum error relates to compensation amount.
Part 7.4 — SC Appeals (Q31-40)
31
S.62 appeal limitation:
30 days
45 days
60 days
90 days
Section 62 provides 60 days limitation.
32
S.62 grounds per:
S.96 CPC
S.100 CPC — substantial question of law
S.114 CPC
Any ground
S.62 references S.100 CPC grounds.
33
Substantial question means:
General importance, affects rights, not settled
Any factual dispute
Procedural only
Quantum only
Substantial question must be of general importance.
34
SLP under:
Article 32
Article 226
Article 142
Article 136
SLP is under Article 136.
35
SLP scope vs S.62:
Narrower
Broader — exceptional circumstances
Same
Procedural only
SLP has broader scope including exceptional circumstances.
36
Leave under S.62:
Automatic
Granted by TDSAT
Must be granted by SC
Not required
SC must grant leave to appeal.
37
Stay in SC appeal:
Must be separately sought
Automatic
Granted by TDSAT
Not possible
Stay must be specifically applied for.
38
SLP limitation:
30 days
45 days
60 days
90 days
SLP generally has 90 days limitation.
39
SC decision in IT matters:
Can be appealed
Final — binds all
Advisory
Reviewable by TDSAT
SC is final appellate forum — binds all.
40
Choose SLP when:
Always prefer SLP
SLP is cheaper
No legal question but gross injustice
Longer limitation
SLP for exceptional circumstances without pure legal question.
Part 7.5 — HC Jurisdiction (Q41-50)
41
Delhi HC pecuniary limit:
₹1 Crore
₹2 Crore
₹50 Lakh
₹5 Crore
Delhi HC original side: ₹2 Crore limit.
42
Writ for directing action:
Mandamus
Certiorari
Prohibition
Habeas Corpus
Mandamus commands authority to act.
43
Writ to quash order:
Mandamus
Prohibition
Certiorari
Quo Warranto
Certiorari quashes illegal orders.
44
Article 226 applies to:
Government only
Courts only
Tribunals only
Any person or authority
Article 226 extends to any person or authority.
45
Writ against private company:
Always maintainable
Not unless public function
Only Delhi HC
With SC permission
Writ against private only if public function.
46
Alternative remedy doctrine:
HC may reject if other remedy available
Must file writ first
No other remedy
Criminal required
HC may decline writ if alternative remedy exists.
47
Bombay HC limit:
₹50 Lakh
₹2 Crore
₹1 Crore
No limit
Bombay HC original: ₹1 Crore limit.
48
Article 227 provides:
Original jurisdiction
Appellate
Review
Superintendence over tribunals
Article 227 gives superintendence power.
49
₹6 Cr cyber claim:
AO
Civil Court/HC (exceeds AO limit)
TDSAT
SC
Above ₹5 Cr exceeds AO jurisdiction.
50
Writ territorial jurisdiction:
Cause of action OR respondent location
Petitioner residence only
Only Delhi
Any HC
Writ where cause arises or respondent located.
Part 7.6 — Injunctions (Q51-60)
51
Triple test includes:
Only prima facie
Prima facie + Balance + Irreparable injury
Only irreparable
Criminal conviction
Triple test requires all three elements.
52
Anton Piller is for:
Search and seizure in civil
Freezing accounts
Arrest
Criminal prosecution
Anton Piller allows search and seizure.
53
Mareva freezes:
Criminal proceedings
Documents only
Assets to prevent dissipation
Plaintiff assets
Mareva freezes assets before judgment.
54
Irreparable injury means:
Any injury
Physical
Financial
Cannot be compensated by damages
Irreparable cannot be made good by money.
55
Trade secret irreparable because:
Damages high
Once disclosed, secrecy lost forever
Defendant poor
Court preference
Trade secrets lose value permanently once disclosed.
56
Ex-parte injunction requires:
Extreme urgency + full disclosure
Just application
Defendant consent
Criminal case
Ex-parte needs urgency and full disclosure.
57
Norwich Pharmacal order:
Freezes assets
Search premises
Disclosure by innocent third party
Arrests defendant
Norwich Pharmacal compels disclosure.
58
Undertaking as to damages:
Defendant pays
Court orders
No damages possible
Plaintiff compensates if injunction wrongful
Undertaking protects defendant.
59
Anton Piller requires:
Weak case
Extremely strong prima facie + destruction risk
FIR
Govt permission
Anton Piller needs strong case and destruction risk.
60
Order 39 CPC covers:
Temporary injunctions
Permanent injunctions
Criminal warrants
Arrest orders
Order 39 deals with temporary injunctions.
Part 7.7 — Content Writs (Q61-70)
61
S.69A grounds include:
Any content
Sovereignty, security, public order
Only defamation
Copyright only
S.69A specifies sovereignty, security, public order.
62
Shreya Singhal struck down:
Section 66A
Section 69A
Section 79
Section 43
Shreya Singhal struck down S.66A.
63
Shreya Singhal on S.69A:
Struck down
Ignored
Upheld with safeguards
Modified
S.69A upheld with procedural safeguards.
64
IT Rules 2021 removal timeline:
24 hours
7 days
72 hours
36 hours for govt orders
36 hours for government orders.
65
S.79 safe harbor lost when:
Always protected
Due diligence not followed
User posts
Never lost
Safe harbor conditional on due diligence.
66
Writ to quash blocking:
Certiorari
Habeas Corpus
Quo Warranto
Prohibition
Certiorari quashes illegal orders.
67
Overbroad blocking means:
Correct
Narrow
Entire website instead of URL
No blocking
Overbroad = blocking more than necessary.
68
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees:
Property
Equality
Life
Freedom of speech
Article 19(1)(a) = freedom of speech.
69
Emergency blocking:
Not possible
Possible without prior hearing
Needs court order
Only terrorism
Emergency allows blocking without prior hearing.
70
Unlawful in S.79 per Shreya Singhal:
Court or government order
Intermediary decision
Any complaint
Media opinion
Unlawful requires court or govt order.
Part 7.8 — Bank Unfreezing (Q71-80)
71
I4C freeze via:
Court order only
NPCI auto-intimation
RBI approval
Account holder consent
I4C sends alert to NPCI which auto-freezes.
72
Police freeze without court order:
Legally questionable — BNSS requires court
Always valid
Only cyber crimes
Bank discretion
BNSS requires court order — police freeze questionable.
73
Article 21 in freeze:
Free speech
Equality
Livelihood deprivation
Religion
Article 21 includes right to livelihood.
74
Mule account:
Fraudster account
Bank account
RBI account
Innocent account used for transfers
Mule = innocent account used by fraudsters.
75
Writ to quash freeze:
Mandamus
Certiorari
Habeas Corpus
Quo Warranto
Certiorari quashes illegal orders.
76
Writ to direct unfreeze:
Mandamus
Certiorari
Prohibition
Quo Warranto
Mandamus commands action — unfreeze.
77
Before writ, should:
Do nothing
File FIR
Representation to police/bank
Wait indefinitely
Representation builds record.
78
Partial release for:
Luxury
Investment
Gifts
Livelihood expenses
Courts allow partial for living expenses.
79
Natural justice violation:
Too much hearing
No notice/hearing before freeze
Appeal allowed
Review available
No hearing violates audi alteram partem.
80
Prove mule innocence:
Show legitimate source — salary, business
Blame bank
Deny everything
Do nothing
Showing legitimate source proves innocence.
Part 7.9 — CPC Framework (Q81-90)
81
Plaint requirements under:
Order 8
Order 7 Rule 1
Order 14
Order 39
Order 7 Rule 1 specifies plaint contents.
82
WS time limit:
30 days (extendable to 90)
15 days
120 days
No limit
WS within 30 days, max 90 days.
83
Non-specific denial:
Strengthens defendant
No effect
Deemed admission
Case dismissed
Without specific denial = deemed admitted.
84
Framing issues under:
Order 7
Order 8
Order 39
Order 14
Order 14 deals with issues.
85
S.65B mandatory for:
Optional
Electronic evidence
Criminal only
Foreign evidence
S.65B mandatory for electronic evidence.
86
Court fee based on:
Suit valuation
Pages
Lawyer fees
Fixed always
Court fee computed on valuation.
87
Counter-claim filed by:
Plaintiff only
Court suo motu
Defendant in WS
Witness
Defendant can file counter-claim.
88
Expert evidence:
Not allowed
Defendant only
Appeals only
Forensic analyst important
Expert evidence crucial in cyber matters.
89
Temporary injunction under:
Order 7
Order 39
Order 14
Order 8
Order 39 deals with temporary injunctions.
90
S.85B provides:
Presumption for electronic records
Criminal liability
Bail
Appeal rights
S.85B creates presumption for electronic records.
Part 7.10 — Landmark Cases (Q91-100)
91
First phishing case:
NASSCOM v. Ajay Sood
Shreya Singhal
Yahoo India
Google India
NASSCOM first declared phishing illegal.
92
S.66A struck down by:
NASSCOM
Shreya Singhal
Yahoo India
Myspace
Shreya Singhal struck down S.66A.
93
First domain dispute:
NASSCOM
Shreya Singhal
Yahoo India v. Akash Arora
Google India
Yahoo India was first domain dispute.
94
Specific knowledge defined in:
NASSCOM
Shreya Singhal
Yahoo India
Myspace v. Super Cassettes
Myspace defined specific knowledge.
95
Parody defense:
Tata Sons v. Greenpeace
NASSCOM
Shreya Singhal
Yahoo India
Tata v. Greenpeace established parody.
96
S.69A per Shreya Singhal:
Struck down
Upheld with safeguards
Ignored
Modified
S.69A upheld with procedural safeguards.
97
S.79 unlawful equals:
Intermediary judgment
Any complaint
Court/govt order only
Media opinion
Unlawful = court or govt order.
98
Algorithm content in:
NASSCOM
Yahoo India
Myspace
Google India v. Visakha
Google India addressed algorithm suggestions.
Google India addressed algorithm suggestions.
99
Passing off in cyberspace:
Yahoo India
NASSCOM
Shreya Singhal
Myspace
Yahoo India extended passing off to domains.
100
S.79 safe harbor requires:
Nothing — automatic
Due diligence + compliance
Only registration
Payment
S.79 immunity conditional on due diligence.
Submit Assessment
0%
🔒 Protected