- (1.) In support of the money claim in the suit, these two applications have been carried by the plaintiff: GA No. 100 of 2011 for judgment on admission and GA No. 401 of 2011 for orders in the nature of attachment before judgment. The short claim in the plaint is that between April and July, 2003 the plaintiff granted loan of divers sums to the defendant amounting to Rs. 1 crore. The plaint says that the defendant has admitted and unequivocally acknowledged receipt of the inter-corporate deposits. The admission is said to have been in the balance-sheets filed by the defendant through the years upto the year ended March 31, 2009. The plaint claims that only in April, 2010, the plaintiff requested the defendant (surprisingly paragraph 6 of the plaint refers to the first defendant) to repay the amount of Rs. 1 crore "along with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum." The claim on account of interest is the first jarring note in the plaint since the inter-corporate deposits and the averments relating thereto at paragraph 2 of the plaint do not speak of any interest. Paragraph 8 of the plaint proceeds to record the issuance of a notice by advocate representing the plaintiff on September 14, 2010 where the claim was made for Rs. 1 crore together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The plaintiff has not really pressed the application for attachment before judgment. The plaintiff has insisted on the decree for Rs. 1 crore on the basis of the admission contained in the successive balance-sheets of the defendant, less an amount of Rs. 37 lakh and odd which the plaintiff has received subsequent to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff says that once the defendant has admitted the transaction and has admitted the quantum in successive balance-sheets, the plaintiff is not called upon to either establish the circumstances surrounding the original transaction or any other matter in support of its claim. The plaintiff refers to Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code and says that the principle recognised therein is to ensure that matters over which there can be no difference between the parties are not stretched and carried to a protracted trial.
(2.) The plaintiff refers to the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant and the averments in paragraph 4 thereof and the subparagraphs thereunder. The plaintiff says that it is evident that the defendant has acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 1 crore and several other sums and the defence is that such amount was repaid by the defendant or adjusted against accounts relating to sister concerns of the parties. The plaintiff relies, in particular, on paragraph 4 (vii) of the affidavit where the defendant refers to errors having crept into the balance-sheets of the defendant. The plaintiff says that such "errors" could not have continued for nearly a decade without the defendant or its auditors noticing the same and without there being any basis therefor. The plaintiff also insists that against the admission evident in the defendant's affidavit that the plaintiff has made the payment that it claims, the defendant has alleged such repayments to have been made though it is evident that the repayments, even if made, were not by cheques.
(3.) The defendant refers to the association of the parties in course of their business relating to coal-mines. The defendant also refers to other transactions and some kind of arrangement between the two groups of persons who were then at the helm of the parties. The defendant says that a mere admission on the defendant's part without the plaintiff attempting to otherwise assert or establish its claim should not be accepted. It is the defendant's contention that an admission should be seen by way of corroboration of the plaintiffs claim and not as a total substitute for the plaintiff's obligation to assert and establish its claim.;