- (1.) Ga No. 101 of 2011 is an application in the nature of attachment before judgment and the plaintiff desires that the defendant be directed to furnish security to the extent of the plaintiff's claim of slightly over Rs. 3.86 crore. GA No. 400 of 2011 is the plaintiff's application for judgment on admission based on the balance sheet of the defendant for the year ended March 31, 1999. The plaintiff says that though the claim in the suit is of a much higher amount, the judgment that it seeks on admission is limited to Rs. 1,77,82,089.05/- as acknowledged in the defendant's relevant balance sheet. The case in the plaint is that pursuant to requests made by the defendant, the plaintiff made over a total amount of Rs. 4,26,40,000/- by cheques to the defendant by way of loan or inter-corporate deposit during the period between August 18, 2003 and March 31, 2004. The plaintiff says that in or about April, 2010, the plaintiff "verbally requested" the defendant to repay such amount together with the accrued interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum but the defendant failed and neglected to make such payment. It is of some significance that where the loan or the inter-corporate deposit is pleaded, in the earlier paragraphs of the plaint, there is no agreement as to interest averred therein. The plaintiff issued a notice of demand on September 14, 2010 calling upon the defendant to make payment of the sum of Rs. 4,26,40,400/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The claim in the suit is in the sum of Rs. 9,07,35,140/- which includes interest on the principal amount for the several years between the facility having been afforded to the defendant and the time of the institution of the suit.
(2.) In support of the claim, the plaintiff relies on the balance sheets of the defendants for several years. Though the plaintiff says that the plaintiff does not need to go behind the year ended March 31,2009, since the amount due to the plaintiff's specifically mentioned therein, the plaintiff says that balance sheets of the defendant for the years ended March 31,2005, March 31,2006 and March 31, 2008 show the amount outstanding to the plaintiff to be Rs. 3,86,15,956/-, Rs. 3,68,79,756/- and Rs. 3,86,45,756/-, respectively. The plaintiff says that the explanation furnished by the defendant, in both its affidavit-in-opposition and in a subsequent supplementary affidavit, should not be given any credence. The plaintiff says that though the defendant has admitted in its affidavit, at paragraph 4(i), that a sum of Rs. 3.86 crore remained due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant has referred to various transactions which are either non-existent or, in any event, have no nexus with the present claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that the defendant's attempt to explain away the admission in the supplementary affidavit does not warrant any consideration since the defendant says that the liability had been admitted "out of inadvertent error" and the defendant had apparently not taken into account the transaction pertaining to a memorandum of understanding dated September 15, 2004.
(3.) The plaintiff has referred to the various documents that have been disclosed by the parties in an attempt to demonstrate that the plaintiff's claim is corroborated both by the defendant's balance sheets and by the plaintiff's. For instance, the plaintiff says that though its balance sheets do not include the claim against the defendant under the head of "loans" such claim is included under the heading of "sundry debtors." The plaintiff relies on an affidavit filed on its behalf to the defendant's supplementary affidavit and says that the particulars of the amounts due to the plaintiff from its sundry debtors have been detailed in the documents appended to such affidavit which have been certified by the plaintiff's auditors.;