The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure to obtain a speedy judgment based on admission of facts, and the interpretation of the scope and ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts act, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - This is an application for judgment upon admission. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,27,72,055/- alongwith interim interest and interest upon judgment.

2. The brief facts culminating in the filing of the suit are that, the respondent had approached the petitioner to avail of a short-term loan of a sum of Rs.4 crores. It was further represented on behalf of the respondent that, the said loan would be repayable with interest @15% per annum. additionally, the respondent was obliged to secure the said loan. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioner on 12 June, 2015 remitted a sum of Rs.4 crores to the respondent by Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS). The respondent duly received the said amount. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13 June, 2016. The Memorandum of Understanding records that in view of the representation and assurances made by the respondent, the petitioner had lent and advanced a sum of Rs.4 crores to the respondent repayable with interest @15% per annum for a period of six months. The agreement also records that, by way of security, the respondent had provided a flat of built up area of approximately 7060 sq.ft. in a building named 'Ideal Unique Centre'. The Memorandum of agreement is signed by both parties. as and by way of additional security, the respondent also forwarded post-dated cheques to the petitioner particulars whereof are set out in the petition.

3. Subsequently, the respondent failed to honour its obligation under the Memorandum of agreement and sought for extension of time to repay the loan. Pursuant to such requests, the parties entered into another Memorandum of Understanding dated 13 June, 2016, whereby the parties agreed that the loan would be repayable within a further period of six months from 13 June, 2016. The respondent also requested the petitioner to replace the aforesaid cheques in lieu of handing over of fresh cheques. additionally, the respondent also forwarded two more cheques for the interest component. Thereafter, the respondent failed, neglected and refused to repay any amount to the petitioner either on account of principal or interest within the stipulated time period. On 1 June, 2018, the respondent made payment of sum of Rs.13,53,707.83/- on account of accrued interest and after deducting Tax Deducted at Source. In view of the repeated defaults of the respondent, the petitioner was compelled to present the post-dated cheque which was lying as security with the petitioner. However, the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. On 6 September, 2018, the respondent deposited an aggregate sum of Rs.4,89,863/- towards Tax Deducted at Source to the credit of the petitioner. Upon dishonour of the cheque dated 1 July, 2018, the respondent furnished a substitute cheque dated 1March, 2019 which was also dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, by a demand notice dated 15 april, 2019 the petitioner called upon the respondent to make payment of the entire loan amount alongwith accrued interest.

4. On 1 October, 2019, the respondent issued another cheque bearing No.003937 dated 1 October, 2019 from ICICI Bank for a sum of Rs.4 crores in favour of the petitioner. Upon presentation of the said cheque on 3 October, 2019, the same was also dishonoured due to insufficiency of the funds. Despite repeated requests and assurancesthe respondent has refused to make any payment either on account of principal or interest. Hence this suit.

5. The petitioner has also filed a criminal complaint being Complaint Case No.CN-1272/2019 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. The petitioner has also instituted a proceeding under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the respondent before the National Company Law Tribunal, Calcutta Bench which is still pending.

6. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

a) a judgment and decree on admission to the tune