Case: M/S WIZAMAN IMPEX PVT. LTD Vs. KEDRION BIOPHARMA INC

3. The said application under Section 9 of the Code was filed by the applicant-respondent on 30.06.2020, in its capacity as an operational creditor of the corporate debtor while claiming, inter alia, that there had been a distribution agreement whereby, the corporate debtor was to sell the pharmaceutical products of the applicant company only until its subsidiary by the name Kedrion India was capable of doing so. Several invoices were raised in duration and credit notes were also issued. It has been the case of the applicant-respondent that as regards the debts due, a notice dated 25.07.2019 was sent, demanding a sum of USD 9,01,000 but, the said demand notice was returned undelivered. Thereafter, on 07.08.2019, another demand notice was sent at the new registered office address of the corporate debtor. The applicant alleged that on 17.08.2019, the corporate debtor replied to the said demand notice disputing the admitted and acknowledged the dues payable, with reference to its pending dispute with the Directorate of Health Services, Maharashtra with regard to the supply of short shelf-life products. The applicant contended that the corporate debtor had committed a default within the meaning of Section 3(12) of the Code and the outstanding amount qualified as an operational debt within the meaning of Section 3(11) read with Section 5(21) of the Code.4. In its order dated 06.10.2020, the NCLT considered the documents referred by the applicant in support of its contention that there had been acknowledgment of debt and thereby the period of limitation would shift from the date of acknowledgment. The NCLT observed that the document dated 15.12.2017 was a credit memo, issued by the applicant and not by the respondent and thus, it could not be treated as an acknowledgment of debt. As regards document dated 07.07.2016 carrying the signatures of the Director of the Company and addressed to the Bank regarding payment of pending invoices, the NCLT observed that even if the said letter was treated as an acknowledgment of debt, the limitation would run from its date, i.e., 07.07.2016. The NCLT further considered another letter dated 02.02.2017 and observed that even if the said document was taken as an acknowledgement of debt, the limitation would run from 02.02.2017. Hence, the NCLT came to the conclusion that, viewed from any angle, the application filed on 30.06.2020 was beyond the period of three years in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, the NCLT proceeded to reject the application so made by the respondent.5. It appears from the perusal of the record that the applicantrespondent, in appeal against the aforesaid order of the NCLT, moved an application (I.A. No. 2685 of 2020) before the Appellate Tribunal and thereby, sought permission to produce the exchanges of e-mails from 03.11.2017 to 11.01.2019 with respect to the propositions for settlement of dues. Admittedly, the said documents were not on record before the NCLT.6. However, the Appellate Tribunal found it just and proper to grant permission to the applicant (appellant before the NCLAT) to place such additional documents on record; but accorded such permission only in the impugned order dated 15.12.2021. Thereafter, on the basis of the said additional documents taken on record, the Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the corporate debtor had admitted its liability and had shown its readiness to make payment as also to revise the settlement proposal. All such suggestions, admissions and offers evidenced by the said e-mails were taken by the Appellate Tribunal as acknowledgement by the corporate debtor within time and thus, it was held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in holding the applicants claim to be barred by time.

Court's reasoning:
7. Though several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for contesting parties as regards effect of the said documents placed before the Appellate Tribunal by way of I.A. No. 2685 of 2020 but, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order allowing the appeal and even admitting the application under Section 9 of the Code cannot be sustained on a short point that the said additional documents were taken on record only while finally deciding the appeal and without adequate opportunity of response to the corporate debtor. However, at the same time, due consideration of the said documents also appears requisite and the documents i.e., the said e-mails, cannot be removed out of consideration only because they were not on record before NCLT.We have overruled such objection for the simple reason that the said application had been rejected by NCLT and was allowed only by way of impugned order and until the said order was examined by this Court and attained finality, the right and locus of the corporate debtor to challenge the correctness thereof, could not have been denied. In any case, in the present matter, the impugned order was passed on 15.12.2021 and admittedly, no other steps had been taken in the matter including that of appointment of resolution professional. In the given set of facts, we overruled the objections raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondent.