9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP' in short) against Corporate Debtor-Action Udhyog Private Limited (the present Respondent). Aggrieved by this impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Operational Creditor. 2. Making his submissions the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Operational Creditor used to supply footwear and related products to the Corporate Debtor/Respondent on the basis of purchase orders received from them. It was also submitted that the invoices stipulated payment to be made 75 days from the date of invoice. Goods were supplied between April - June 2016 and payment fell due on 08.07.2016. The date of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor as submitted by the Appellant is 08.07.2016. The Operational Creditor issued a demand notice to the Corporate Debtor on 02.07.2019 demanding payment of Rs.22.26 lakhs as unpaid operational debt including interest @ 18% per annum. However, the Corporate Debtor did not issue any notice of dispute. The Operational Creditor thereafter filed a Section 9 application before the Adjudicating Authority. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Section 9 application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said email cannot be relied upon to extend the limitation since it was difficult to ascertain beyond doubt to which date the statement of account attached therein belonged to. Buttressing their argument, it was pointed out that the said email was neither signed by the Corporate Debtor nor sent by any authorized person on behalf of the Corporate Debtor. More importantly, the statement of account attached to the email acknowledging the debt was unsigned and did not carry the stamp and seal of the Corporate Debtor. Hence, in the absence of any date and proper authentication thereof, the authenticity of the external file attachment containing an aged account statement of the Corporate Debtor cannot be ascertained beyond doubt. It was, therefore, argued that the Adjudicating Authority had rightly held that the Company Petition filed before it was barred by limitation. 7. We have duly considered the arguments and submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. 8. We notice that the Corporate Debtor in their reply dated 09.03.2020 to the Section 9 application filed by the Appellant had raised several objections, inter-alia, non-maintai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nized under Section 4 of the IT Act, 2000. It was further pointed out that in terms of Explanation to Section 66A of IT Act, 2000, electronic mail or electronic mail message means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message. Hence, the attachment being part of the main body of email, it enjoyed the sanctity of being an electronic mail. 11. It is also submitted that with digital and new communication systems having become all pervasive, there is rampant use of computers to create, transmit, receive and store information in the electronic form substituting the use of traditional paper documents. It was further submitted that the preamble of the IT Act, 2000 also reinforces the adoption of electronic means of communication. Digital technology facilitates scope for creation, compression, storage, preservation of data and their easy transmission. That being so, if any party acknowledges by way of email that certain amounts are due then it amounts to an acknowledgement of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "34. That from perusal of the aforesaid email and attachment annexed therewith, it is observed that the main body of the e-mail does not contain any statement regarding acknowledgement of the debt by the corporate debtor and the attachment relating to Accounts attached therewith is neither signed by any authorized person nor bears the Company Seal. Further, we notice that the Applicant, for the acknowledgement of debt, has referred to and relied on the attachment containing Accounts statement of the Corporate Debtor, which as we have observed, is not duly authenticated. 35. We understand that there is no requirement or scope to sign the main body of the e-mail and at the same time, there is no possibility of tampering the date and time of the main body of e-mail, which is a major factor while considering the issue of limitation. Per contra, if acknowledgement of debt is made basing on the contents of an attachment, which is an external file exported/attached with the mail and if that attachment is not duly authenticated by signature of the authorized person and date or/and Company Seal, it is not possible to ascertain beyond doubt to which date the document is generated or belon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is-:- (a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and (b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference." 17. A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that the intent of Section 4 of the IT Act is to allow any information which can be transmitted on paper by physical mode to also be henceforth transmitted in electronic form too. In other words, this section recognizes that a document sent and received electronically shall be deemed to have complied with the requirement of sending information in writing. Put differently, documents which were hitherto, transmitted by handwriting or in typewritten/printed form can now be transmitted in electronic form. Be that as it may, Section 4 of the IT Act, 2000 does not expressly or implicitly make any special dispensation for electronic messages. It follows therefrom that the prescribed format or procedural niceties which the paper-based communication is required to follow is ipso facto equally applicable to the electronic messages. We, therefore, agree with the Adjudicating Authority that merely because a document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore cannot be comprehended by any stretch of imagination to be an acknowledgment of debt. We are inclined to agree that by mere endorsement of the words 'FYI', it cannot be said that the Corporate Debtor had acknowledged the liability of operational debt. It may also be pertinent to add here that the Corporate Debtor in their reply has also raised some dispute relating to quality of goods supplied by the Operational Creditor. Given the fact that the debt has not been acknowledged; that a dispute has also been raised on the quality of goods supplied in the Section 9 application and that the veracity of statement of accounts contained in the form of external attachment to the main body of the email has been questioned, we are persuaded to believe that the email of 05.05.2017 cannot be viewed as an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the Corporate Debtor and hence cannot help in extending the period of limitation. 21. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find merit in the submissions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant to warrant any interference in the impugned order. We are of the view that the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
