Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The petition is for judgment on admission for a principal sum of Rs. 3.32 crore together with interest.
(2.) The plaint case appears to be somewhat convoluted and only the facts essential for the present purpose need be noticed. It appears that the plaintiff and the second defendant, apparently medical practitioners, agreed to collaborate for setting up private hospitals or the like and the project did not come through, whereupon the plaintiff was permitted to exit with the promise that the money initially brought in by the plaintiff of Rs. 3.32 crore would be refunded to the plaintiff.
(3.) The plaintiff claims that the first defendant company was the vehicle introduced by the second defendant to set up the medical unit or units and the third and fourth defendants, parents of the second defendant; the fifth defendant, wife of the second defendant; and, the sixth defendant, a close associate of the second defendant, were all involved in one form or the other such that the human agencies of the defendant nos. 2 to 7 and the corporate agency of the first defendant should be seen to be the one and the same person, at least, qua the dealings with the plaintiff. The seventh defendant is a Trust named after the fourth defendant which was to set up the units. It is unclear why it was necessary to set up a Trust once the first defendant company had been identified as the vehicle for the project; but it is quite possible that trusts and nidhis and the like are quite helpful in tax matters and the seventh defendant may have been set up for such purpose. However, such aspect of the matter has no connection with the immediate claim of the plaintiff.;