Court awards petitioner Rs. 6,27,72,055/- with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-; application disposed with directions.

The court decreed in favor of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 6,27,72,055/-, along with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The application in the case was disposed of with directions in favor of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the suit as a commercial dispute.
2. Admission of liability by the respondent.
3. Maintainability and prematurity of the application.
4. Injunction and security for the petitioner’s claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of the Suit as a Commercial Dispute:
The petitioner argued that the suit is maintainable before the Commercial Division of the Court, emphasizing that the transaction falls within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The respondent contended that the dispute is not a 'commercial dispute' and should be treated as an Ordinary Civil Suit, relying on an unreported judgment in Ladymoon Towers Private Limited Vs. Mahendra Investment Advisors Private Limited. The court found that the present case is a classic commercial dispute, supported by multiple documents executed by the parties, distinguishing it from the Ladymoon Towers case where the loan was a friendly loan without any documents.

2. Admission of Liability by the Respondent:
The court observed that the respondent had unequivocally admitted receiving Rs. 4 crores from the petitioner, as evidenced by post-dated cheques and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13 June 2015 and 13 June 2016. The respondent’s repeated issuance of post-dated cheques, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds, further confirmed the liability. The court noted that the respondent had also signed a confirmation of accounts for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018, admitting the debt.

3. Maintainability and Prematurity of the Application:
The respondent argued that the application was premature and not maintainable under Order 13A and Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court rejected this contention, stating that Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for a speedy judgment based on admissions. The court emphasized that the rule provides wide discretion to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit based on admitted facts, without waiting for further determination.

4. Injunction and Security for the Petitioner’s Claim:
The petitioner sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from dealing with the property provided as security and requested the respondent to furnish security for the claimed amount. The court noted that the respondent had already dealt with the security furnished under the Memorandum of Understanding. Consequently, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to secure its claim in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court decreed in favor of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 6,27,72,055/-, as detailed in paragraph 24 of the petition, along with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The application GA/1/2021 in C.S 221 of 2021 was disposed of with the aforementioned directions.

---