CYBER LAW : LW4018.

Module-I: Introduction to Cyberspace

1.1 Need and Scope of Cyber Law.
i. Cyber Law:
(a) Cyber Law, in simple terms, is the “law governing cyber
space”. In other words, Cyber Law is a generic term, which
refers to all the legal and regulatory aspects of Internet and
the World Wide Web, i.e., anything concerned with or related
to or emanating from any legal aspects or issues concerning any
activity of citizens and others, in cyberspace comes within the ambit
of Cyber Law. It is also known as ‘Internet law’ and
‘Computer law’.
(b) The word ‘cyberspace’ has been coined by author William
Gibson in his science-fiction novel ‘Neuromancer’, written
in 1984.
(c) Cyberspace refers to the virtual computer world, and more
specifically, an electronic medium that is used to facilitate
online communication. Cyberspace typically involves a large
computer network made up of many worldwide computer sub-
networks that employ the TCP/IP protocol to aid in communication
and data exchange activities.

ii. Scope:
(a) Cyber Law is the area of law dealing with the use of
computers and the Internet and the exchange of
communications and information thereon, including related
issues concerning such communications and information as
the protection of intellectual property rights, freedom of
speech, and public access to information.
(b) The issues addressed by cyber law includes:
➢ cyber-crime,
➢ electronic commerce,
 ➢ intellectual property inasmuch as it applies to cyberspace, and
➢ data protection & privacy.

1.2 Growing Concerns relating to Cyberspace and Cyber

Technology.
i. Privacy in Cyberspace –
(a) Privacy, once confined to physical spaces and personal
property, has transformed alongside technological
advancements. From digital footprints to personal data,
right to privacy has an added dimension of controlling digital
identities.

ii. Cybercrime –
(a) Criminal activity on the web (internet) is termed
Cybercrime. Cybercrime is a criminal exploitation of the
internet. A misconduct that is committed against an
individual or group of individuals with an unlawful intention
to hurt the position of the victim or cause any mental or
physical harm to the victim directly or indirectly using
advanced IT and related sources such as Internet and mobile
phones is termed as cybercrime.
(b) Cybercrimes are broadly categorized into two categories:
➢ Using a computer to target other computers for example, Virus
attacks, hacking etc.
➢ Using a computer to commit crimes for example, credit card
frauds, cyber terrorism etc.
(c) Cybercrime is prevented and protected by Cyber laws. The
non-presence of physical boundaries on the internet and the
non-effective security of the data of the user is one of the
main reasons for cybercrime.
 (d) The Internet blurs the line between online and offline
activities, affecting criminal law. Regulatory, normative,
and technological challenges emerge:
➢ Regulatory Challenges: Sovereignty and jurisdiction
conflicts in borderless cyberspace.
➢ Normative Challenges: Value conflicts related to
Internet content.
➢ Technological Challenges: Securing computing and
value-sensitive designs.

1.3 Important Definitions under Information Technology Act,

2000 (“IT Act”).
i. Through the Fifty First (51st) Amendment, the Indian Parliament
enacted an Act called the Information Technology Act 2000 (“IT
Act 2000”). The primary aim of the parliament in making this law
was to recognize e-commerce, electronic records admissible in
evidence and the growing use of internet. The act aimed at
meeting with future legal problems that might arise due to the
rapid increase in use of the internet.

ii. The Indian Parliament captured the spirit of the General

Assembly’s recommendations dated 30 January 1997 in the
United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996
(UNCITRAL Model) in the form of the IT Act 2000.

iii. The basic principles of the Model Law were:

(a) To facilitate rather than regulate electronic commerce.
(b) To adapt existing legal requirements.
(c) To provide basic legal validity and raise legal certainty.

iv. The Act facilitates international trade and acts as alternative to

paper-based methods of communication and storage information
as it facilitates E-commerce and E-governance in the country. It
 establishes a regulatory framework in the country also lays down
punishment regimes for different cybercrimes and offences.

v. Under Section 2 of the IT Act 2000, the following are defined:

➢ Asymmetric Cryptosystem [Section 2(f)]
➢ Certifying Authority [Section 2(g)]
➢ Computer [Section 2(i)]
➢ Computer network [Section 2(j)]
➢ Computer resource [Section 2(k)]
➢ Computer system [Section 2(l)]

vi. Section 1 –
(a) Specifies the extant of the application of the IT Act 2000.
(b) For the purpose of sub section (2) It shall extend to the
whole of India, save as otherwise provided in this Act, it
applies also to any offence or contravention thereunder
committed outside India by any person.

vii. Section 75 –
(a) Deals with the provision of the act to apply for offences or
contravention committed outside India.
(b) It states that: subject to the provision of sub section (2), the
provision of this act shall also apply to any offence or
contravention committed outside India by any person
irrespective of his nationality. For the purpose of sub section
(1), this act shall apply to an offence or contravention
committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct
constituting the offence or contravention involves a
computer, computer system or computer network located
in India.
(c) Case Law: Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A.
Murali Reddy – The Plaintiff company had registered office
 in Singapore and Defendants were from Hyderabad. The
court raised important questions.

1.4 Theories of Jurisdiction in Cyberspace.

i. Concept of Cyber Jurisdiction –
(a) Jurisdiction is the power of State to regulate the conduct of
its subjects by legislations, adjudication and enforcement. It
gives power to the appropriate court to hear a case and
declare a judgment. In cybercrime instances, the victim and
the accused are generally from different countries, and
hence deciding which cyber jurisdiction will prevail is
conflicting.
(b) In cyberspace, there are generally three parties involved in
a transaction: the user, the server host, and the person with
whom the transaction is taking place, with the need to be
put within one cyberspace jurisdiction. All three parties in
this illustration belong to three different countries, now the
laws of ‘A,’ ‘B’ or ’C’ will be prevalent or not, or even
municipal laws will be applicable or international laws the
issues of jurisdiction in cyberspace. The extent of a court’s
competency to hear a cross-border matter and apply
domestic state laws is another issue.
(c) Cyberspace is a concept of recent origin and evolving
everyday with the development of sophisticated technology
in the form of software and hardware. The nature of
cyberspace has challenged the traditional notion of
jurisdiction of court world over.
(d) Cyber Law’s jurisdiction depends on the kind of cybercrime
and the location from which it has been done.
(e) Cyber Jurisdiction or Jurisdiction in Cyber Space – In
simple terms, Cyber Jurisdiction is the extension of
principles of international jurisdiction into the cyberspace.
 ➢ Cyberspace has no physical (national) boundaries. It is an
ever-growing exponential and dynamic space. With a
‘click of a mouse’ one may access any website from
anywhere in the world.
➢ Since the websites come with ‘terms of service’
agreements, privacy policies and disclaimers – subject to
their own domestic laws, transactions with any of the
websites would bind the user to such agreements. And in
case of a dispute, one may have recourse to the ‘private
international law.
➢ In case the “cyberspace offences” are either committed
against the integrity, availability and confidentiality of
computer systems and telecommunication networks or
they consist of the use of services of such networks to
commit traditional offences, then one may find oneself in
the legal quagmire.

ii. Types of Cyber Jurisdiction –

(a) Personal Jurisdiction:
➢ It is a type of jurisdiction where the court can pass
judgments on particular parties and persons.
(b) Subject-matter Jurisdiction:
➢ It is a type of jurisdiction where the court can hear and
decide specific cases that include a particular subject
matter. If the specific subject matter is of one court but
the plaintiff had sued in any other court then the plea will
be rejected and the plaintiff will have to file the case in
the court which is related to that matter.
(c) Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
➢ This type of jurisdiction mainly deals with monetary
matters. The value of the suit should not exceed the
pecuniary jurisdiction. There are various limits set for a
 court that can try a case of a certain value beyond which
it is tried in different courts.

iii. Pre-requisites of Cyberspace Jurisdiction –

(a) Prescriptive Jurisdiction:
➢ This type of jurisdiction enables a country to impose
laws, particularly for a person’s activity, status,
circumstances, or choice. This jurisdiction is unlimited.
However, International law prevents any state from
legislating any such law contrary to other countries
interests.
(b) Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:
➢ Under this jurisdiction, the state has the power to decide
the matter on a person concerned in civil or criminal
cases despite the fact that the state was a party or not; a
mere relationship between both is sufficient. It is not
necessary that a state having the prescribed jurisdiction
must also have jurisdiction to adjudicate.
(c) Jurisdiction to Enforce:
➢ This jurisdiction depends on the existence of prescriptive
jurisdiction; hence if prescriptive jurisdiction is absent,
then it cannot be enforced to punish a person violating its
laws and regulations; however, this jurisdiction is not
exercised in an absolute sense and a state cannot enforce
its jurisdiction on a person or the crime situated or
happened in a different country.

iv. Theories of Cyber Space Jurisdiction –

(a) Subjective Territoriality –
➢ It lays down that if the act is committed in the territories
of the forum state, then its laws will be applicable to the
 parties. The act of the non-resident person in the forum
state is the key element under it.
➢ For example- A country can make a law criminalizing an
act in its territory, and then the subject aspect of the
territoriality will recognize it.
(b) Objective Territoriality –
➢ It is invoked when an act is committed outside the forum
state’s territorial boundary, yet its impact is on the forum
state. It is also known as ‘Effect Jurisdiction.’
➢ Case Law: United States v Thomas – In this case,
objective jurisdiction theory was established. The
defendant published phonographic material and to see
and download it, he provided the subscribers with a
password after getting a form filled out which included
their personal details, and the plaintiff claimed it to be
violative of its domestic laws, the court held that “the
effect of the defendant’s criminal conduct reached the
Western District of Tennessee, and that district was
suitable for accurate fact-finding,” and the court has the
cyberspace jurisdiction.
➢ Case Law: Playboy Enterprise, Inc. v Chuckleberry
Publishing, Inc. – In the landmark case, the defendant
operated a website in Italy on which obscene photographs
were displayed, and some of its users were citizens of the
USA. The court found it to be against US laws and
banned the website from falling under US jurisdiction;
however, the court does not have cyberspace jurisdiction
to put a complete ban on the use by other users of
different states.
(c) Nationality –
➢ It is applied to the offender who is the national of the
state; for example, if a person of a state commits an
 offence in a foreign country that is punishable by
domestic laws, then the state has the power to punish its
citizen.
(d) Universality –
➢ The acts which are universally acclaimed as crimes such
as hijack, and child pornography. A cyber-criminal can
be convicted in any country for committing such a
heinous crime. It presumes that the country has cyber
jurisdiction to prosecute the offender of a cybercrime.

v. Test Evolved of Determination of Jurisdiction in Cyber

Law –
(a) Minimum Contacts Test (“MCT”)–
➢ This test is applicable where both or any of the parties are
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
➢ Case Law: Washington v International Shoe
Company – In the landmark judgment, MCT was
evolved by the US Supreme Court.
➢ After this case, the court laid down three criteria:
• The Defendant must purposefully avail himself of
privilege of doing business with forum State.
• The cause of action arises from the Defendant’s
activities in the forum State.
• Exercise of jurisdiction should be fair and reasonable.
(b) Purposeful Availment Test – [Long Arm Statute]
➢ This test is applicable where both or any of the parties are
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, however,
contact was sufficient to establish “purposeful benefit”.
➢ Case Law: CompuServe Inc. v Patterson – In this case,
the court held that contracts (shareware agreements)
related to cyberspace are also covered under the domain
of minimum contacts theory.
 ➢ After this case, the court laid down four criteria:
• Purposeful and successful solicitation of business.
• Establishment of contract with forum State residents.
• Associated with other Forum State-related activities.
• Substantial enough connection with Forum State.
(c) Sliding Scale Test –
➢ Sliding Scale theory is also known as Zippo Test. It is the
most accepted test in deciding personal jurisdiction in
cyberspace cases.
➢ On the basis of the interactivity of the websites, the
jurisdiction is decided. The more the number of
interactivities, the more the courts have personal
jurisdiction over it in the forum state.
➢ For a passive website (no solicitation of business, onlt
information exchange), the courts have almost no
jurisdiction, while in the middle spectrum site, i.e.,
active website (one-sided exchange of information only), the
court may or may not have jurisdiction; however, in the
case of a highly interactive site (contract of selling, involving
money as well as information, being choice-driven), the court
has cyberspace jurisdiction.
➢ Case Law: Zippo Manufacturer v Zippo.Com – In the
landmark case, the plaintiff Zippo Manufacturer of
lighters in Pennsylvania sued the defendant Zippo.com
for an infringing trademark. The defendant had a highly
interactive website; hence the personal jurisdiction will
be applicable to the defendant.
➢ Case Law: Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A.
Murali Reddy – The court held that a passive website,
with no intention to specifically target audiences outside
the State where the host of the website is located, cannot
vest the forum court with jurisdiction.
(d) Effects Test/Calder Test and International
Targeting –
➢ Few conditions are required to be satisfied for the Effect
test, mainly the action taken expressly against the
forum state with the knowledge and intention that it
will injure the state.
➢ Components:
• Intentional Action.
• Expressly aimed at forum State.
• Causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered and
which th+e Defendant knows the forum State to
suffer from.
➢ If the court thinks fit that the defendant’s action caused
injuries to the forum state, then personal cyberspace
jurisdiction is asserted in cyberspace cases where no
contact is present.
➢ Case Law: Calder v. Jones – In the landmark case, the
US Supreme Court observed that the court in the state
can exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents. In
this case, the editor and writer of a national magazine
published a defamatory article on the residents. The facts
of the case are that the plaintiff Shirley Jones sued the
distributor, the writer, and its editor Calder of a national
magazine, defaming her as an alcoholic. Jones was a
resident of California while the article was written and
edited in Florida. Jones sued the defendants in the court
of California because the magazine had a vast circulation
in the state. The court held that the court of California
has personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
➢ Case Law: Panavision International v Toeppen,
Toeppen – In this case, the defendant indulged in
cybercrime by using the plaintiff’s trademark
commercially and selling it back to him for a hefty
amount. The California court held that by applying the
effects test, the court had personal jurisdiction over the
non-resident defendant.
Module-II: Recognition and Authentication of Electronic Records

2.1 Legal Recognition of Electronic Records under IT Act.

i. The Information Technology Act, 2000 aims to provide the legal
framework under which legal sanctity is accorded to all electronic
records and other activities carried out by electronic Information
Systems Control and Audit means. The Act states that unless
otherwise agreed, an acceptance of contract may be expressed by
electronic means of communication and the same shall have legal
validity and enforceability.

ii. Digital Signature (Amended Vide ITAA 2008):

(a) Section 3 gives legal recognition to electronic records and
digital signatures.
(b) The digital signature is created in two distinct steps.
➢ Firstly, the electronic record is converted into a message
digest by using a mathematical function known as “hash
function” which digitally freezes the electronic record
thus, ensuring the integrity of the content of the intended
communication contained in the electronic record. Any
tampering with the contents of the electronic record will
immediately invalidate the digital signature.
➢ Secondly, the identity of the person affixing the digital
signature is authenticated through the use of a private key
which attaches itself to the message digest and which can
be verified by anybody who has the public key
corresponding to such private key. This will enable
anybody to verify whether the electronic record is
retained intact or has been tampered with since it was so
fixed with the digital signature. It will also enable a
person who has a public key to identify the originator of
the message.
iii. Electronic Signature:
(a) Electronic signature is dealt with under Section 3A of the IT
Act, 2000.
(b) A subscriber can authenticate any electronic record by such
electronic signature or electronic authentication technique
which is considered reliable and may be specified in the
Second Schedule.
(c) An Amendment to the IT Act in 2008 introduced the term
electronic signatures. The implication of this Amendment
is that it has helped to broaden the scope of the IT Act to
include new techniques as and when technology becomes
available for signing electronic records apart from Digital
Signatures.

iv. Electronic Governance:

(a) E-governance or Electronic Governance is dealt with under
Sections 4 to 10A of the IT Act, 2000. It provides for legal
recognition of electronic records and signature and also
provides for legal recognition of contracts formed through
electronic means.
(b) Filing of any form, application or other documents,
creation, retention or preservation of records, issue or grant
of any license or permit or receipt or payment in
Government offices and its agencies may be done through
the means of electronic form.
(c) Section 4 provides for “legal recognition of electronic
records”. It provides that where any law requires that any
information or matter should be in the typewritten or
printed form then such requirement shall be deemed to be
satisfied if it is in an electronic form.

v. Section 5 provides for legal recognition of Digital Signatures.

Where any law requires that any information or matter should be
 authenticated by affixing the signature of any person, then such
requirement shall be satisfied if it is authenticated by means of
Digital Signatures affixed in such manner as may be prescribed by
the Central Government.

vi. Section 6 lays down the foundation of Electronic Governance. It

provides that the filing of any form, application or other
documents, creation, retention or preservation of records, issue
or grant of any license or permit or receipt or payment in
Government offices and its agencies may be done through the
means of electronic form. Section 6A talks about the service
provider as the appropriate government may authorize any service
provider and vary charges as they think fit.

vii. Section 7 provides that the documents, records or information

which is to be retained for any specified period shall be deemed to
have been retained if the same is retained in the electronic form
provided the information therein remains accessible and
represents the original information.

viii. Section 8 provides for the publication of rules, regulations and

notifications in the Electronic Gazette. It provides that where any
law requires the publication of any rule, regulation, order, bye-
law, notification or any other matter in the Official Gazette, then
such requirement shall be deemed to be satisfied if the same is
published in an electronic form. It also provides where the Official
Gazette is published both in the printed as well as in the electronic
form, the date of publication shall be the date of publication of the
Official Gazette which was first published in any form.

ix. However, Section 9 of the Act provides that the conditions

stipulated in sections 6, 7 and 8 shall not confer any right to insist
that the document should be accepted in an electronic form by any
 Ministry or department of the Central Government or the State
Government.

x. Attribution, Acknowledgement and Dispatch of Electronic

Records:
(a) The Act deals with attribution, receipt and dispatch of
electronic records. ‘Attribution’ means ‘to consider it to be
written or made by someone’.
(b) Hence, Section 11 lays down how an electronic record is to
be attributed to the person who originated it.
(c) Section 12 provides for the manner in which
acknowledgement of receipt of an electronic record by
various modes shall be made.
(d) Whereas, Section 13 of the act provides for the manner in
which the time and place of despatch and receipt of
electronic record sent by the originator shall be identified.
(e) Generally, an electronic record is deemed to be despatched
at the place where the originator has his place of business
and received where the addressee has his place of business.

xi. Secure Electronic Records and Secure Electronic Signatures:

(a) Sections 14 to 16 deals with securing electronic records and
electronic signatures.
(b) Section 14 provides where any security procedure has been
applied to an electronic record at a specific point of time,
then such record shall be deemed to be a secure electronic
record from such point of time to the time of verification.
(c) Section 15 provides for the security procedure to be applied
to Digital Signatures for being treated as a secure digital
signature.
(d) Section 16 provides for the power of the Central
Government to prescribe the security procedure in respect
of secure electronic records and secure digital signatures. In
 doing so, the Central Government shall take into account
various factors like nature of the transaction, level of
sophistication of the technological capacity of the parties,
availability and cost of alternative procedures, volume of
similar transactions entered into by other parties etc.

2.2 Authentication by use of Asymmetric Cryptosystem.

i. Process –
(a) In an asymmetric cryptosystem, (or public key
cryptosystem), there are two different keys used for the
encryption and decryption of data.
(b) The key used for encryption is kept public and so as called
public key, and the decryption key is kept secret and called
private key.
(c) The keys are generated in such a way that it is impossible to
derive the private key from the public key.
(d) The transmitter and the receiver both have two keys in an
asymmetric system. However, the private key is kept
private and not sent over with the message to the receiver,
although the public key is.

ii. Advantage(s) –
(a) In asymmetric or public key, cryptography there is no need
for exchanging keys, thus eliminating the key distribution
problem.
(b) The primary advantage of public-key cryptography is
increased security: the private keys do not ever need to be
transmitted or revealed to anyone.
(c) Can provide digital signatures that can be repudiated

iii. Disadvantage(s) –
(a) A disadvantage of using public-key cryptography for
encryption is speed: there are popular secret-key encryption
 methods which are significantly faster than any currently
available public-key encryption method.

2.3 Electronic Signature and Digital Signature under IT Act.

i. All DS (technology-specific, i.e., modality being asymmetric algorithm)
are ES (technology-neutral, includes OTP, Captcha Code, Biometrics,
scanned signature) but all ES are not DS.
ii. Similarities –
(a) Both digital and electronic signatures are needed to make a
digital agreement verifiable and legally enforceable.
iii. Difference –
(a) An electronic signature is mostly used to verify a document,
while a digital signature serves to secure it.
(b) An electronic signature only shows an intent to sign a
particular document, while a digital signature secures it.
(c) A digital signature can be verified, while an electronic
signature cannot.
(d) Whereas an electronic signature is evidence of the document
signatory’s agreement, a digital signature is evidence that
the document itself is authentic.

2.4 Public Key Infrastructure.

i. A set of requirements that permit creating a digital signature with
other things is known as a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI).

ii. The process requires several elements for effective use.

(a) To identify a user digitally, a Certified Authority (CA) is
used for authentication which can be a personal computer or
a server. Certified Authorities manage the lifecycle of any
number of digital certificates in the system and prevent fake
entities.
(b) On the next step, digital certificates are provided to the user
on a subject-to-subject basis by Registration Authority (RA)
 that is authorized by the Certificate Authority. All the
requested certificates, revoked and received by both
Registration Authority and Certificate authority. Then all
certificates are stored in an encrypted certificate database.

2.5 Regulation of Certifying Authority under IT Act.

i. At the top of the hierarchy of authorities under the Act for the
purpose of issuance of digital signature certificates is the
Controller of the Certifying Authorities. Under Section 17(1) of
the Act, the Central Government has been empowered to appoint
a Controller for the purposes of the Act.
ii. The functions of the Controller have been enumerated under
section 18 of the Act. These functions basically relate to Certifying
Authorities or Digital Signature Certificate. It is the Controller’s
duty to regulate and control almost each and every activity of the
Certifying Authorities. This is particularly important since the
primary work of the Certifying Authorities is issuance of digital
signatures and setting up infrastructure for its subsequent public
verification. The Controller also has the function of specifying the
form and content of a Digital Certificate and the key as also
specifying the contents of written, printed, or visual materials and
advertisements that may be distributed or used in respect of a
Digital Signature Certificate and the public key.
iii. In case of conflict of interests between the Certifying Authorities
and the subscribers, the Controller has been empowered to
resolve the same.
iv. Controller to act as Repository – Under section 20 of the Act, the
Controller has been made the repository of all Digital Signature
Certificates issued under the Act. The responsibility of the secrecy
and security of the Certificates is on the Controller who shall make
use of appropriate hardware, software and procedures that are
secure from intrusion and misuse. The Controller is also under an
obligation to maintain a computerised database of all public keys
 in such a manner that such database and the public keys are
available to any member of the public.
v. Recognition of Foreign Certifying Authorities – Section 19 of the
Act gives the power to the Controller to recognise any Certifying
Authority for the purposes of the Act subject to certain conditions.
vi. Power to investigate contraventions – Section 28 empowers the
Controller to take up for investigation any contravention of the
provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder.
Directions to extend facilities to decrypt information
vii. The Controller has, under sub-section (1) of section 69, the power
to direct any agency of the Government to intercept any
information transmitted through any computer resource.
However, certain conditions have been laid down, which have to
be fulfilled before such power can be exercised.
(a) The Controller should be satisfied that such interception is
necessary in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement
to the commission of any cognizable offence. Such reasons
must be recorded in writing.
(b) The direction to the agency must be by an order.
viii. Licence to Issue Digital Signature Certificates – An elaborate
discussion has been made in the Act with regard to the licence to
issue Digital Signature Certificates. The provisions of the Act
cover the application for licence, grant or rejection of licence,
renewal of licence, suspension of licence, display of licence and
surrender of licence. The Controller has been made the sole
authority with regard to all these activities.

2.6 Validity of Digital Contracts.

i. G
ESS IMPORTANT:
- Millennium Enterprises Inc. v. Millenium Music LP,
- Martiez Inc. v. Cybergold Inc,
- (Cyber cell v. Cyber Cell)
- Gutnick v. Dow Jones
- Casio India Corp v. A.S. Hista Telesystems Pvt Ltd., 2007

MODULE II:
-
- How to create a digital signature?
- How to verify a digital signature?
-
E-contracts - Case laws done
- 10 A, 11, 12, 13
- The difference between postal rule of communication v. Instantaneous rule
of communication //

E LAWS:
1. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottam Das and Co.
2. Trimex international FZE Ltd v. Vedanta aluminium Ltd India
3. Entores Ltd v. Miles Far Eastern Corporation

Mod 2- Sec, 3a, 4, 5 , 17, 18, 21, 38, 35-42