JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application praying for Judgment and Decree on admission of a sum of Rs. 2,55,17,542.34/- along with further interest @ 24% per annum.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit being CS 84 of 2012 praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,09,31,769.60/- along with interest @ 24% per annum.

3. As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant has clearly unequivocally admitted and acknowledged its liability towards the plaintiff to make payment as claimed by the plaintiff.

4. Mr. Reetobrato Mitra, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that in the usual course of business, the plaintiff had placed purchase orders for supply of the iron ore lumps and fines with the defendant, and in terms of the said purchase order, the defendants supplied such material to the plaintiff. After giving all credit for all payments made by the plaintiff against goods supplied by the defendant prior to 16th July, 2008, a sum of Rs. 48,869/- was lying credit to the credit of the defendant which was agreed to be taken into consideration at the time of next transaction between the parties.

5. Mr. Mitra submits that on 16th July, 2008, the plaintiff had placed purchase order on the defendant for purchase of the following:

(i) 3,000 M.T. of iron ore fines would be supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff.

(ii) 3,000 M.T. would have a minimum iron contains of 62.5%.

(iii) The rate of such goods was fixed @ of Rs. 4,000/- per M.T. along with C.S.T @ 2%.

(iv) The entire payment was to be made in advance by the plaintiff.

6. Mr. Mitra submits that in terms of the purchase order, plaintiff has made payment of Rs. 1,22,40,000/- taking into consideration, the prior outstanding of Rs. 48,869/- . The defendant had made supply of part quantity of iron ore fines in between April, 2008 to April, 2009. As the goods supplied by the defendant was not as per the specification and accordingly with the mutual consent of the parties, the defendant had reduced the price of the goods supplied by the defendant.

7. Mr. Mitra submits that out of the total supply of 3000 MT of iron ore, the defendant had supplied only 1577.14 MT leaving a balance of 1422.76 MT. As the defendant had not supplied the balance quantity amounting to Rs. 80,21,950/- as on 31st March, 2009.

8. Mr. Mitra submits that after several requests, the defendant was able to pay a further sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- leaving credit balance of Rs. 64,56,883.60 in favour of the plaintiff. He further submits that from time to time, the defendant had issued post dated cheques to the plaintiff in discharge of its liability to refund the outstanding of the plaintiff but on the date of maturity of the post dated cheques, the defendant requested the plaintiff not to present such cheques.

9. Mr. Mitra submits that the defendant had issued a fresh post dated cheques for Rs. 10,00,000/- dated 24th May, 2011 but the same was also dishonored with the endorsement “insufficient fund.”

10. Mr. Mitra submits that an amount of Rs. 64,56,883.60/- is admitted by the defendant and the defendant has no defence to the claim of the plaintiff, it was presumed that the defendant was unable to pay its due on account of its commercial insolvency, accordingly, the plaintiff had initiated a Company Petition No. 409 of 2011 before this Court to windup the defendant under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

11. Mr. Mitra submits that defendant has entered into the said case and raised frivolous defence and infact the defendant had admitted that the sums are due and payable to the plaintiff. The said case was disposed of on 9th January, 2012 by directing the defendant company to secure the claim of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- and granted leave to the plaintiff to file an appropriate proceeding in the nature of a suit for realization of such amount.

12. Mr. Mitra submits that the defendant has illegally and unlawfully withheld the balance money paid by the plaintiff for affec