Unpaid penalty or compensation under the Information Technology Act, 2000 is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The relevant licence or electronic signature certificate remains suspended until payment of the penalty.

Section 63 permits compounding of contraventions before or after adjudication proceedings, subject to conditions and a sum not exceeding the maximum imposable penalty. Compounding is barred for the same or similar contravention committed within three years of an earlier compounded contravention, while a later contravention is treated as a first contravention. Once compounded, no proceeding or further proceeding may continue for that contravention.

An aggrieved person may appeal a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court within sixty days of its communication, on a question of fact or law arising from the order. Where sufficient cause prevented timely filing, the High Court may permit filing during a further period not exceeding sixty days.

Section 61 bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings concerning matters that an adjudicating officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under the statutory framework. It also prohibits courts or other authorities from granting injunctions against action taken, or proposed to be taken, pursuant to powers conferred under that framework.

Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are governed, as far as practicable, by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 60 applies that limitation framework to appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, making the Limitation Act the governing basis for determining timeliness of an appeal.

Right to legal representation before the Appellate Tribunal permits an appellant to appear personally or authorise one or more legal practitioners or officers to present the appellant's case. The provision applies to both individual and institutional appellants.

The Appellate Tribunal is guided by natural justice rather than the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure and may regulate its own procedure and sittings, subject to the governing Act and rules. It has civil-court powers to compel attendance, obtain documents or electronic records, receive affidavit evidence, issue commissions, review decisions, and dispose of applications by default or ex parte. Its proceedings have judicial-proceeding status and the Tribunal receives civil-court treatment for specified procedural-criminal purposes.

Persons aggrieved by orders of the Controller or an adjudicating officer may appeal to the competent Appellate Tribunal, except where an adjudicating officer's order was made with the parties' consent. Appeals require prescribed form and fee, must ordinarily be filed within forty-five days of receipt of the order, and may be admitted late on sufficient cause. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the order.

Section 56 concerning staff of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal was omitted, removing the statutory framework for Tribunal personnel. Before omission, the Central Government was required to provide officers and employees as considered fit. Their functions were subject to the general superintendence of the Presiding Officer, while salaries, allowances, and other service conditions were to be prescribed by the Central Government.

Central Government orders appointing the Chairperson or a Member of an Appellate Tribunal cannot be challenged. Acts and proceedings before an Appellate Tribunal cannot be questioned merely because of a defect in the tribunal's constitution, preserving the validity and continuity of appellate proceedings.

Section 54 concerning resignation and removal of the Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal stands omitted. Previously, resignation required written notice to the Central Government and continuation in office until the earliest prescribed event. Removal was limited to proved misbehaviour or incapacity, following an inquiry by a Supreme Court Judge, notice of charges, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Procedural rules for investigating misbehaviour or incapacity could be prescribed by the Central Government.

Section 53 concerning the filling of vacancies in the office of the Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal stands omitted. Before omission, it required appointment of a replacement for a non-temporary vacancy and allowed proceedings to continue from the stage at which the vacancy was filled.

Section 52 has been omitted and no longer contains a framework for the salary, allowances, retirement benefits or service conditions of the Presiding Officer. Before omission, those matters were subject to prescription, and the Presiding Officer's salary, allowances and other service terms could not be varied to the officer's disadvantage after appointment.

Section 51 stands omitted through section 169. Before omission, it prescribed that the Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal would hold office for five years from assuming office or until reaching sixty-five years of age, whichever occurred earlier. The omission removes the previously stated tenure and age-limit framework from section 51.

Section 50 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, stands omitted. The earlier provision permitted appointment of a person who was, had been, or was qualified to be a High Court Judge, or who was a member of the Indian Legal Service and had held Grade I for at least three years.

Section 49 governing the composition of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal was omitted with effect from 26 May 2017. Before omission, it required the Tribunal to consist of one person, identified as the Residing Officer, appointed by the Central Government through notification, thereby establishing a single-member appellate tribunal and central-notification appointment mechanism.

The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal is designated as the Appellate Tribunal for purposes of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It exercises the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred under that Act. The Central Government may notify the matters and places in relation to which the Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction.

Compensation quantum under the Information Technology Act, 2000 is adjudged by the adjudicating officer with due regard to quantifiable gain or unfair advantage from the default, loss caused to any person by the default, and the repetitive nature of the default. These factors guide assessment of compensation within the penalties, compensation and adjudication framework.

Adjudicating officers appointed by the Central Government determine Information Technology Act contraventions involving penalties or compensation. They may adjudicate damage claims within the prescribed monetary jurisdiction, while larger claims lie before the competent court. The affected person must receive a reasonable opportunity to make a representation before an inquiry leads to a penalty or compensation award. Officers require prescribed technical and legal or judicial experience and exercise specified civil court powers, with proceedings treated as judicial proceedings.

Section 45 creates a residuary penalty for contravention of rules, regulations, directions or orders where no separate penalty is prescribed. The contravener is liable for a penalty up to one lakh rupees, in addition to compensation payable to the affected person. Higher compensation applies to an intermediary, company or body corporate than to any other person.