Balance sheet acknowledgment defeats a gift defence in recovery proceedings; interest allowed only from a specified date onward.

A corporate defendant could not resist recovery by asserting that amounts recorded in its own balance sheet and tax representation were really a gift or in the nature of a gift. The Court treated the accounting entries as a relevant acknowledgment of liability and held that a company cannot advance a plea contrary to its own books, especially where no legal basis for a valid corporate gift was shown. That defence was therefore untenable and did not require trial on that issue. On interest, pre-demand interest was declined, but interest was allowed from 1 April 2015 onward, with enhanced interest for delayed payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant could resist recovery by pleading that the amounts shown in its balance sheet as due were really a gift or in the nature of a gift and whether such a plea justified framing issues and trial; and whether interest was payable on the principal amount claimed.

Analysis: The defence that a company's own books and balance sheet showed the amount as a loan or advance, but the liability was really a gift or in the nature of a gift, was rejected as legally unsustainable. A corporate entity cannot be permitted to take a stand before the Court contrary to its own accounting treatment and tax representation. A gift requires transfer without consideration and, in the absence of authority showing that the company could make or receive such a gift, the plea was held to be untenable. The entries in the balance sheet were treated as a relevant acknowledgment of liability, and the absence of a viable legal defence meant that no trial was required on that aspect. As to interest, the claim for interest for the pre-demand period was not accepted because the amount had not been shown as interest-bearing receivable, but the Court awarded interest from 1 April 2015 onward and provided for enhanced interest in case of delayed payment.

Conclusion: The principal claim was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the plea of gift or nature of gift was rejected, and interest was allowed only from 1 April 2015 onward at the rate fixed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The suit was substantially decreed for recovery of the principal sums claimed, with limited relief on interest and conditional consequences for non-payment within the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi: A defendant cannot defeat a recovery claim by advancing a plea that is contrary to its own balance sheet and accounting treatment, especially where the asserted defence does not constitute a legally sustainable transaction such as a valid gift or other consideration-free transfer by a corporate entity.

---