Unpaid penalties imposed under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Where a penalty remains unpaid, the relevant licence or Digital Signature Certificate shall be suspended until payment, combining revenue-style recovery with suspension of the applicable licence or certificate. Recovery and suspension therefore continue in force throughout the period in which the penalty remains unpaid.

Section 63 authorises the Controller, a specially authorised officer, or the adjudicating officer to compound a contravention before or after adjudication begins. Compounding is subject to conditions fixed by the competent officer, and the sum imposed cannot exceed the maximum penalty otherwise imposable. Repeat or similar contraventions within three years are ineligible for compounding, while compounding prevents further proceedings concerning the resolved contravention.

Section 62 permits a person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal to appeal before the High Court on a question of fact or law arising from the order. The appeal must be filed within sixty days of communication of the order. On sufficient cause for delay, a further filing period not exceeding sixty days may be allowed.

Civil court jurisdiction is excluded for suits or proceedings concerning matters assigned under the Information Technology Act, 2000 to an adjudicating officer or the Cyber Appellate Tribunal for determination. Courts and other authorities are also barred from granting injunctions against actions taken, or proposed to be taken, pursuant to powers conferred under the Act. The provision establishes a statutory bar on civil proceedings and injunctive relief within the specialised adjudicatory framework.

Limitation for appeals to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal is governed, as far as applicable, by the Limitation Act, 1963. Its limitation framework applies to appeals made to the Tribunal, subject to suitability in the appellate context.

Right to legal representation before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal allows an appellant to appear personally or use authorised representation. One or more legal practitioners, or any officer of the appellant, may present the case. Personal appearance remains available, while authorised representation permits the appellant's case to be presented before the Tribunal.

The Cyber Appellate Tribunal follows principles of natural justice rather than the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may regulate its own procedure and sittings. It has civil-court powers to summon and examine persons, require documents and electronic records, receive affidavit evidence, issue commissions, review decisions, dismiss applications for default, and decide matters ex parte. Its proceedings are treated as judicial proceedings for specified criminal-law purposes, and it is deemed a civil court for specified purposes under criminal procedure law.

Appeals to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal lie against orders of the Controller or an adjudicating officer, except consent orders of an adjudicating officer. Appeals must be filed in the prescribed form with the prescribed fee within forty-five days of receipt, subject to admission of delayed filings for sufficient cause. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the order.

The Central Government is to provide the Cyber Appellate Tribunal with officers and employees as it considers fit. Their functions are performed under the general superintendence of the Presiding Officer, and their salaries, allowances, and other conditions of service are prescribed by the Central Government.

Central Government orders appointing the Presiding Officer of a Cyber Appellate Tribunal are final and cannot be challenged in any manner. Acts and proceedings before the Tribunal remain insulated from challenge merely because of a defect in the Tribunal's constitution. The provision preserves the validity of proceedings notwithstanding such constitutive defects.

Resignation by the Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal requires written notice to the Central Government, with continuation in office until earlier permitted relinquishment, successor appointment, expiry of three months, or expiry of the term, whichever occurs first. Removal is limited to proved misbehaviour or incapacity following an inquiry by a Judge of the Supreme Court, with notice of charges and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Vacancies in the office of the Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, other than those caused by temporary absence, must be filled by the Central Government through appointment of another person in accordance with the applicable provisions. Pending proceedings may continue from the stage reached when the vacancy is filled, preserving procedural continuity.

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.

Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal holds office for five years from entering office, subject to earlier cessation of tenure upon attaining sixty-five years. The office cannot continue beyond the specified retirement age even where the five-year period has not expired.

Appointment as Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal requires eligibility as a High Court Judge, former High Court Judge, or person qualified to become a High Court Judge. Eligibility also extends to a current or former member of the Indian Legal Service who has held a Grade I post for at least three years. These are mandatory conditions for appointment.

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.