IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Pradeep Kumar Saraogi and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Pradip Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
IA No. GA 1 of 2022, CS No. 238 of 2022
Decided On : 27-06-2024
Financial Assistance - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 12, Rule 6
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs provided financial assistance to the defendant, who defaulted on repayment and interest obligations, leading to the plaintiffs seeking a judgment upon admission for the outstanding amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had acknowledged the debt but raised issues regarding the nature of payments and the maintainability of the suit, which required further examination at trial.
Issues: Whether the defendant's admissions were clear and unequivocal, and whether the suit was maintainable given the claims of separate causes of action and limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's admissions were not sufficiently clear to warrant a judgment upon admission, and the issues raised were substantial enough to require a full trial.
Result: The application for judgment upon admission was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. The Plaintiffs have filed the present application for a judgment upon admission for a sum of Rs.1,33,33,333/- along with an interest of 18% per annum.
2. The plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 are the daughters, and the plaintiff no. 3 is the daughter-in-law, of the plaintiff no. 1, and they are all engaged in a family business.
3. The defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiffs, being the plaintiff no. 1’s sister’s husband’s brother.
4. The defendant had requested the plaintiff for financial assistance of Rs. 1 (One) Crore, and accordingly after discussions between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the plaintiffs have agreed to pay the discussed amount of Rs.1 (One) Crore to the defendant. It was also discussed between the parties that the advanced requisite sums would be repaid by the Defendant within 5 (five) Years, and that the said advances could be recalled in case of default or at the option of the Plaintiffs for any reason on demand, whichever was earlier.
5. It was also further agreed, that the defendant, would continue to make regular payment of interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
6. The Plaintiff No. 2 has lent and advanced a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the defendant on 13th July, 2015, by RTGS through the HDFC Bank, Stephen House Branch, the Plaintiff No. 3 has lent and advanced a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the defendant on 13th July, 2015, by RTGS through the same bank and the Plaintiff No. 4 has lent and advanced an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- by RTGS through the same bank on 13th July, 2015.
7. The defendant has confirmed the acknowledgment of the total amount of Rs. 1(One) Crore by executing and signing thereof a confirmation of accounts in favour of the plaintiffs.
8. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the Defendant has made payments of interest to the plaintiff no. 2, an aggregating sum of 1st Rs.11,15,342.47/- up to October, 2019. An aggregating sum of Rs.14,87,123.29/- was paid to the Plaintiff No. 3 up to 1st October, 2019 and an aggregating sum of Rs.11,15,342.47/- was paid to Plaintiff No. 4 up to 1st October, 2019.
9. The defendant, however, defaulted in his obligation to pay interest and also failed to discharge his liabilities towards repayment of the principal amount.
10. The plaintiffs submit that they have on several occasions, attempted to discuss the repayment with the defendant, directly as well as through well-wishers and family for payment of interest as well as principal amount. But despite such repeated attempts, the defendant failed to repay any sum or interest after 1st October, 2019.
11. Left with no recourse, the plaintiffs by a letter dated 22nd July, 2022, the plaintiffs called upon the defendant seeking repayment of the outstanding sum of Rs.1,33,33,333/- within 7 (seven) days of receipt of the letter, to which the defendant had replied by a letter dated 6th August, 2022 and stated that the plaintiffs are making incorrect, false and fictitious statements and the sums paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs are payment for purchase of shares and not the interest amount.
12. The defendant had failed to repay the amount along with interest inspite of receipt of notice accordingly the plaintiffs have filed the suit. The claim of the plaintiff is as follows:
| S. No. | Particulars | Amount (in Rs.) |
| 1. | Principal sum advanced by Smt. Anu Saraogi on 13.07.2015 | 30,00,000/- |
| 2. | Interest due on sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- advanced by Smt. Anu Saraogi on 13.07.2015 from 01.10.2019 to 31.07.2022 | 10,00,000/- |
| 3. | Principal sum advanced by Smt. Priyanka Saraogi on 13.07.2015 | 40,00,000/- |
| 4. | Interest due on sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- advanced by Smt. Priyanka Saraogi on 13.07.2015 from 01.10.2019 to 31.07.2022 | 13,33,333/- |
| 5. | Principal sum advanced by Smt. Priya Saraogi on 13.07.2015 | 30,00,000/- |
| 6. | Interest due on sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- advanced by Smt. Priya Saraogi on | |
A party seeking judgment on admission must demonstrate clear and unequivocal admissions, and failure to establish a prima facie case precludes injunction relief.
A party seeking judgment on admission must demonstrate unequivocal admissions; failure to establish a prima facie case negates the possibility of granting an injunction.
A single isolated instance of lending money does not constitute a money-lending business requiring a license under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940.
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.
The main legal point established is that for a judgment to be based on admissions, the admissions must be unequivocal and unambiguous, and the court can ignore vague and unsubstantiated defenses.
Judgment on admission can be granted when there is a clear, unequivocal acknowledgment of debt, allowing the court to bypass a full trial.
An admission in the balance sheets for several years can be the basis for a decree unless explained by the defendant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that admissions by the parties and the authenticity of documents play a crucial role in determining liability for loan repayment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.