SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) This is an application for judgment upon admission. The claim in the suit is arising out of an inter corporate deposit of Rs. 5 crore created on 4th July 2011 for a period of three months. The transactions are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after the expiry period, the entire amount together with interest has not been repaid to the plaintiff. The inter corporate deposit together with interest as on 1st April 2016 comes to Rs. 10,83,55,294/-. The respondent has also issued Tax Deduction at Source Certificate from time to time acknowledging its liability to pay the aforesaid sum. In view of failure on the part of the respondent to refund the aforesaid sum, legal notice was issued. The said legal notice, however, remained unreplied.
(2.) In the affidavit in opposition, the respondent resisted the claim on the basis of a dispute between one Gati Infrastructure Bhasmey Power Private Limited and the plaintiff in relation to a hydroelectric project at Sikkim. It is submitted that Gati is a sister concern of the respondent and an arbitration proceeding is pending between the plaintiff and Gati. It is submitted that unless the said arbitration proceeding is concluded and an award is passed, the respondent would not be liable for making any payment under the inter corporate deposit. It is submitted that the plaintiff has invested the aforesaid sum by way of an inter corporate deposit with an implied understanding that the said fund should be utilised for the hydroelectric project by Gati and after settlement of accounts, if any amount is found due and payable to the plaintiff, the same shall be refunded.
(3.) This explanation is very difficult to accept at this stage. Even if it is assumed that there was such an understanding, then there would have been some reflection in some document about such understanding. The confirmation of accounts by the respondent clearly shows that the respondent is indebted to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,83,55,294/-. The admission of liability is unequivocal. Moreover, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and Gati. The present transaction is independent of the contract between the plaintiff and Gati. The respondent has no lien, either statutory or contractual, over the said fund. 3;