A party seeking judgment on admission must demonstrate unequivocal admissions; failure to establish a prima facie case negates the possibility of granting an injunction.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA No. 1 of 2023 in CS 120 of 2023 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for judgment and decree on admission for a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum totaling in Rs. 3,92,32,471/- or in alternative for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with or disposing of or alienating or transferring or encumbering their assets and properties and from withdrawing any amounts from their bank accounts.

2. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- and in view of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff agreed to makeover a loan to the defendants. The terms and conditions of the loan were discussed between the parties and it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would lend and advance a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the defendants with the interest @ 18% per annum. The defendant no. 1 would be received the said amount on behalf of the other defendants and is re-payable on demand. It was further agreed between the parties at the end of each financial year, the defendants would execute necessary balance confirmation certificate confirming the principal amount due to the plaintiff for the purpose of tax.

3. The plaintiff has paid a total sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the defendants on two tranches i.e. on 3rd April, 2013 and 9th April, 2013 amounting of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 25,00,000/- respectively. At the end of each financial year, the defendants executed and made over balance confirmation certificates to the plaintiff upto 31st March, 2021. From the end of year 2021, the defendants failed and neglected to issue balance confirmation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff by an email dated 16th October, 2022 and a letter dated 14th June, 2023 called upon the defendants for repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- along with interest accrued therein. The defendants failed to pay the principal amount as well as interest as demanded by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.

4. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the defendants have admitted and acknowledged the debts in the balance confirmations executed by the defendants for the financial years 2013-2014, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021.

5. Mr. Chowdhury submits that the defendants have not denied with respect to the receipt an amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- from the plaintiff which was duly transferred from the accounts of the plaintiff to the accounts of the defendants on 3rd April, 2013 and 9th April, 2013. He submits that the defendants have also not denied with regard to the balance confirmations showing the total amount of Rs. 75,00,000/-.

6. Mr. Chowdhury further submits that the plaintiff came to know that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 are involved circumstances and have numerous creditors in the market. He submits that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 were the real estate developers and have developed several projects in past but at present, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 do not have any project which is upcoming. He submits that the involvement of the defendants at present is as lenders in many projects which have been taken over by other persons. He submits that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 and their concerns are at the stage of insolvency. Mr. Chowdhury further submits that the plaintiff and her family members have filed several suits against the defendant nos. 2 and 3 and their family concerns claiming total amount of Rs. 114 Crores.

7. Per contra, Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant no. 1 submits that the plaintiff has filed the present application for judgment upon admission relying upon the balance confirmations. He submits that the plaintiff has alleged that the balance confirmation had been issued by the defendants but the same was issued only by the defendant no. 1, thus