The main legal point established is the significance of the respondent's admission of liability in a money recovery case, the interpretation of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, and the rejection of vague defenses such as limitation.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - This is an application for judgment upon admission. The suit is filed for recovery of money lent and advanced. The petitioner claims a decree of Rs.1,06,43,220/- (inclusive of interest).

2. Pursuant to negotiations by and between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner lent and advanced a sum of Rs.80 lacs to the respondent. The said sum was repayable with interest @ 12 per cent per annum. Initially, the respondent was to repay the said amount within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt. Pursuant thereto, on 4 September, 2014, the petitioner by way of Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) advanced a sum of Rs.80 lacs to the respondent. The respondent duly received the said amount and also acknowledged the same by a letter dated 4 September, 2014.

3. Thereafter, prior to expiry of 120 days period, the respondent approached the petitioner and sought for an extension to repay the entire principal amount alongwith outstanding interest. Subsequently, it was agreed by and between the parties that on and from 3 January, 2015 the respondent would pay the petitioner interest @ 12 per cent per annum on quarterly basis and the loan would be repayable on demand. Between 1 January, 2015 to 31 March, 2019, the respondent paid an aggregate sum of Rs.43,92,331/- to the petitioner on account of interest. Thereafter, on 31 June, 2019 the respondent issued a post dated cheque for Rs.3,20,877/- on account of interest. Upon presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured on the ground of 'Insufficient Funds'. By a letter dated 8 December, 2021 the petitioner was compelled to recall the entire loan and the outstanding interest thereon @ 12 per cent per annum.

4. On 8 December, 2021 the respondent handed over a post-dated cheque for the entire principal sum of Rs.80 lacs to the petitioner dated 31 December, 2021 with an assurance that the same would be honoured.

On 1 January, 2020 the said cheque for Rs.80 lacs was dishonoured upon presentation on the ground of 'Insufficient Funds'. Thereafter, by a notice dated 14 January, 2022 the petitioner called upon the respondent to pay the entire principal amount alongwith interest. Despite receipt of the notice dated 14 January, 2022, the respondent neither made any payment on account of the principal amount nor on account of overdue interest. In this background, the petitioner was compelled to file this suit for an aggregate sum of Rs.1,06,43,290/- (inclusive of interest). Upon filing of this suit, the petitioner has filed this application for judgment upon admission.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the facts enumerated hereinbelow, the petitioner is entitled to a decree for judgment upon admission:

(a) The letter dated 4 September, 2014 whereby the respondent has admittedly received the entire loan amount of Rs.80 lacs and acknowledged that the same would be repaid within 120 days alongwith interest @ 12 per cent per annum.

(b) Confirmation of accounts duly signed on behalf of the respondent dated 31 March, 2019 whereby payment of interest on quarterly basis @ 12 per cent per annum to the petitioner is unequivocally and categorically admitted

(c) The issuance of the cheque towards interest dated 1 August, 2019 for a sum of Rs.3,20,877/- by the respondent towards interest which was subsequently dishonoured on the ground of 'Insufficient Funds'.

(d) The issuance of a post-dated cheque for Rs.80 lacs dated 31 March, 2021 which was also dishonoured on the ground of 'Insufficient Funds'.

(e) It is also alleged that from the Affidavit in Opposition filed by the respondent to this application, that it would be evident that there is no dispute to the incontrovertible case of the petitioner. In this connection reliance is placed on paragraphs 4, 5, 8 and 10 respectively of the Affidavit in Opposition wherefrom it appears that 'there were repeated talks of settlement and assurances made to the petitioner by the respondent that the entire