A court can pass Judgment and Decree on admission based on admissions made by a party, even if the defendant raises a defence, if the defence is insufficient or illusory.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA No. 1 of 2020 for Judgment and Decree on admission and allied prayers in connection with CS No. 71 of 2020.

2. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for Decree for an amount of Rs. 64,71,312/-along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

3. The plaintiff has filed the present application on the contention that the defendant has admitted the claim of the plaintiff and there is to defence of the defendant to go for trial.

4. The plaintiff contended that sometimes in the month of June’ 2016, the defendant through a broker had approached the plaintiff for financial assistance for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and the defendant also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the advance. As per the request of the defendant, it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would lend an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs to the defendant which would carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum and the loan would be repayable on demand. It was further agreed that the defendant would pay interest on the principal amount on every four months.

5. As agreed by the parties, on July 2, 2016, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 50 lakhs to the defendant by transferring the said amount by way of RTGS. On receipt of the said amount, the defendant had paid interest till 31st March, 2018 on April 3, 2018. The interest paid to the plaintiff on the said amount of Rs. 50 lakhs has deducted tax at source. The defendant had issued balance confirmation on April 1, 2017 in favour of the plaintiff up to March 31, 2017. Thereafter the defendant neglected to refund the said principal amount along with interest or any part thereof to the plaintiff. The plaintiff made request to the defendant for refund of the said amount but the defendant has not paid any further amount and accordingly on September 4, 2019, the plaintiff had issued the letter calling the defendant for payment of entire loan together with interest and by a reply dated September 24, 2019, the defendant has denied his liability.

6. The plaintiff by filing this application praying for Judgment and Decree on admission by relying upon the document i.e. the amount transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant on July 2, 2016 by way of RTGS, the interest paid by the defendant to the plaintiff till March 31, 2018 on April 3, 2018, interest paid from time to time till March 31, 2018, TDS deducted on the interest amount paid to the plaintiff and confirmation of account from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2018.

7. Mr. Amritam Mondal, learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that from the above mentioned documents the defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff and there is no good defence to send the suit for trial and as such the plaintiff is entitled to get Judgment and Decree on admission. Mr. Mandal relied upon the judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online Cal 2480 (Prabha Surana vs. Jaideep Halwasiya) and submitted that plaintiff is required to be protected when the defendant prima facie appear to have admitted their liability and in spite of acknowledgement of liability did not even repay the interest which according to own admission of the defendant were to be regularly paid.

8. Per contra, Mr. Reetobroto Mitra, learned Advocate representing the defendant submitted that in early 2019, the defendant had made payment of entire principal sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in several tranches to the person assigned by the plaintiff, her broker as indicated in her letter of demand. He submits that the person assigned by the plaintiff was not known to the defendant and the entire payment was made to the said person in cash who was admitted to be the financial broker of the plaintiff as admitted by the plaintiff in the instant application as well as in her notice dated September 4, 2019.

9. Mr. Mitra submitted that immediately on receipt of the notice of the plaintiff, the defendant had replied by intimating that the defendant had a