Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. As regards, the plea taken by the Appellant that the application was not hit by limitation since there was an email dated 05.05.2017 from the Corporate Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 846 of 2022 Debtor acknowledging the debt, it was argued that 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.

12. This brings us to the counter argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the issue in question is not whether the communication sent out electronically is legally valid or not but whether an unsigned document sent electronically is admissible and constitutes a valid acknowledgment for the purpose of extending the period of limitation in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. It has also been submitted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in M/s. Babulal Rukmanand vs. The Official Liquidator, Bharatpur Oil Mills Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 846 of 2022 (Pvt.) Ltd. 1967 SCC OnLine Raj 20 held that unsigned books of accounts/statement of accounts do not constitute a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, any reliance placed on the said email of 05.05.2017 and statement of accounts attached therewith, is non-est in law since the alleged statement is unsigned and not authenticated by the Authorized Representative of the Corporate Debtor. The applicability of this ratio has however been questioned by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on the ground that the judgment was passed prior to the IT Act, 2000.