Calcutta High Court
Sudha Jayaswal vs Gupta Engineering Company And Ors on 26 August, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-13
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No. GA/1/2024
In
CS/12/2023
SUDHA JAYASWAL
VERSUS
GUPTA ENGINEERING COMPANY AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 26th August, 2025
Appearance:
Ms. Tiana Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
For the plaintiff.
Mr. Zeeshan Haque, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Kanodia, Adv.
For the defendants.
The Court:- Affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today is taken on record.
In a suit for money, lent and advanced, the plaintiff has filed this
application for judgment upon admission, inter alia, under the provisions of
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC).
The plaintiff says that a temporary accommodation loan of Rs.9,00,000/-
was given to the defendant no.1 which is a partnership firm. The other
defendants are the partners of defendant no. 1. The money was received by
the defendants upon encashing the cheques issued by the plaintiff in the year
2013 and 2014. The plaintiff has relied upon the balance confirmation for the
financial years 2013-2014, 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 duly signed
on behalf of the defendant no. 9.
2
The plaintiff also says that the loan was repayable by 31 st March, 2020.
A cheque was issued by the defendants for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- on
22.01.2020
which on being presented was dishonoured. Relying upon such
document, the plaintiff says that the defendants have in clear unambiguous
terms admitted that money has been received by the defendants from the
plaintiff and there being no other transaction between the plaintiff and the
defendants, the cheque was issued for repayment of the loan which has been
admittedly dishonoured. The defence put forth by the defendants are ex-facie
sham and does not explain the admission as borne out from the chain of
events and documents. The plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to a judgment upon
admission and a consequential decree in terms thereof.
The defendants have objected to the plaintiff's case primarily on the
ground that the facts and figures alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint or in the
application does not tally with the documents annexed to the application and
relied upon by the plaintiff to obtain a judgment upon admission.
The defendants say that in the plaint and the application, the plaintiff
has said that a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- was given as a temporary accommodation
loan by the plaintiff to the defendants between 2013-2014, but from the
balance confirmation it will appear that only a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- have been
given. The date as to payment of Rs. 2,000,00/- is different in the pleading
from that shown in the balance confirmation.
The defendants also say that from the pleadings filed by the plaintiff and
the documents relied upon it is not even apparent that the loan was to be
repaid on 31st March, 2020. There is no document to that effect.
The plaintiff has alleged that interest had been paid till the financial year
2018-2019. The plaintiff has issued no notice to recall loan despite alleged
default in payment of interest. No notice was also issued when no interest has
been paid for the financial year 2019-2020. The cheque which has been
dishonoured, according to the defendants, was given as security and could not
have been presented for encashment without prior intimation to the
defendants. The defendants have also disputed the signature in the balance
confirmation on the ground that none of the partners of the defendant no.1 had
signed the balance confirmation.
The argument on behalf of the defendants could not be concluded.
Let this matter retain its position in the list for being taken up as and
when the business of the Court so permits.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
snn.
