2018 (1) TMI 1561 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acts of financial impropriety - HELD THAT - This is not a case of any payment being made after an admission was made by the appellant. The appellant acknowledged a sum in excess of ₹ 2.32 crore to be apparently due to the plaintiff as at March 31, 2016, but the plaintiff's document of April 4, 2016 shows that the plaintiff claimed that the dues were to the extent of ₹ 1.67 crore. Thus, the admission contained in the document of April 1, 2016 pertaining to the accounts till March 31, 2016 was destroyed. Whatever may be the other rights of the plaintiff, on the basis of the documents and the case that it carried to the interlocutory Court, no judgment on admission could have been passed. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated September 20, 2017 impugned herein is set aside and the plaintiff is left free to pursue the plaintiff's remedies in accordance with law. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal and cross-objection arising from an order for judgment on admission.
2. Claim of respondent-plaintiff for balance price of goods sold and delivered.
3. Reliance on cheques and confirmation of accounts for financial transactions.
4. Allegations of financial impropriety and collusion by appellant's executives.
5. Discrepancies in admitted amounts and subsequent communications affecting judgment on admission.

Analysis:
1. The appeal and cross-objection stemmed from an order for judgment on admission concerning a claim by the respondent-plaintiff for the balance price of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff relied on two cheques and confirmed accounts to support their claim, seeking a judgment on admission for a specific amount.

2. Prior to issuing the cheques, the appellant alleged financial impropriety by its executives, leading to suspicions of collusion and undeserving claims. The appellant contended that the plaintiff should have addressed these allegations before depositing the cheques for encashment, suggesting fraudulent activities by certain former executives.

3. The interlocutory Court recognized the plaintiff's application for judgment on admission, noting discrepancies in the amounts mentioned in the cheques and the demand notice. The Court emphasized the necessity of a clear, unequivocal admission by the party against whom the judgment is sought for a valid judgment on admission.

4. The plaintiff's reliance on the confirmed accounts was challenged due to discrepancies in the admitted amounts and subsequent communications. The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of admitted figures and the impact of contradictory statements on the validity of a judgment on admission.

5. Ultimately, the Court found that the discrepancies in the admitted amounts and subsequent communications undermined the basis for a judgment on admission. The judgment and decree were set aside, allowing the plaintiff to pursue alternative remedies as per the law. The related applications and cross-objection were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the claim, reliance on financial documents, allegations of impropriety, and the impact of discrepancies on the validity of a judgment on admission.