Notice of Motion No. 801 of 2013. Case: SRL Ltd Vs Techtrek India Ltd. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Notice of Motion No. 801 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Applicant: Siddharth Murarka, Adv. and For Respondents: R. C. Mishra, Adv. |
| Judges | S. C. Gupte, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - Section 34, Order 12 Rule 6 |
| Citation | AIR 2014 BOM 42 |
| Judgement Date | February 03, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
The Notice of Motion is for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a sum of Rs.1,58,54,200/-. The admissions are said to be contained in various communications of the Defendant outside the pleadings.
-
The Plaintiff's case in the suit may be briefly stated thus. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into leave and licence agreements, under which the Plaintiff took on licence various floors of the building owned by the Defendant. The Plaintiff had kept interest free security deposits with the Defendant aggregating to Rs.1,78,54,200/- under these agreements. The Plaintiff returned the possession of the licensed premises to the Defendant. The security deposits aggregating to Rs.1,78,54,200/- were agreed to be refunded according to a payment schedule given on 6 April 2010. The Defendant refunded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from out of the said security deposits, but failed to refund the balance. The cheques issued by the Defendant towards such refund were dishonoured. The balance amount of Rs.1,58,54,200/- is sought to be recovered in the present suit with interest.
-
The Plaintiff relies on the following admissions of the Defendant in support of its application for a decree on admission:
(i) By letter dated 30 August 2009 (Exhibit 'F' to the plaint), the Defendant admitted that as per its books an amount of Rs.1,78,54,200/- was shown as security deposit received from the Plaintiff;
(ii) By letter dated 10 December 2009 (Exhibit 'G' to the plaint), the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to confirm the outstanding balance of Rs.1,78,54,000/- on account of security deposit, which was confirmed on 23 December 2009 under the signature of an authorized signatory of the Defendant with the seal of the Defendant affixed;
(iii) In the Schedules forming part of the accounts of the Defendant for the year ended on 31 March 2009 (Exhibit 'H' to the plaint), the security deposit of Rs.1,78,54,200/- is shown as current liability of Defendant No.1;
(iv) In the Schedules forming part of the accounts of the Defendant for the year ended on 31 March 2010 (Exhibit 'H1' to the plaint), the security deposit of Rs.1,78,54,200/- is shown as current liability of Defendant No.1;
(v) By letter dated 6 April 2010 (Exhibit 'C' to the plaint), the Defendant once again confirmed having received the security deposits of Rs.1,78,54,200/- and gave a full and final payment schedule towards refund of the said accounts;
(vi) The particulars of post dated cheques issued to the Plaintiff towards the said payment schedule were mentioned in the said letter;
(vii) Having regard to a part payment of Rs.20 lakh on 26 May 2011 towards the repayment of the security deposit, fresh cheques were issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,58,54,200/-. The Defendant's letters enclosing these cheques are on record (Exhibits 'D' and 'E' to the plaint), which are not disputed by the Defendant;
(viii) In the Schedules forming part of the accounts of the Defendant for the year ended on 31 March 2011 ( Exhibit 'H2' to the plaint) the security deposit of Rs.1,78,54.200/- is once again shown as current liability of Defendant No.1.
-
The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the admissions are unambiguous and clear and a decree ought to be passed on the basis thereof. The learned Counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial