Admissions and balance-sheet entries may prove acknowledged debt, while disputed refund quantum can still raise triable issues

Clear admissions in pleadings, together with cheque issuance and balance-sheet entries, can evidence a subsisting debt in a summary suit. The text explains that an acknowledged obligation to refund money need not always rest on a separate written refund agreement if the pleadings themselves disclose liability. It also notes that an audited balance-sheet entry showing advances from customers may amount to acknowledgment of liability. Where the exact refund quantum and interest remain disputed, triable issues can still arise, supporting conditional rather than unconditional leave to defend.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend the summary suit, or whether the pleadings and balance-sheet entries disclosed an acknowledged liability sufficient to justify conditional leave to defend.

Analysis: The defendant's stand in the proceedings before the insolvency forum, read as a whole, showed that it had agreed to refund the plaintiffs' money after deducting a stated percentage and service tax, and had also issued cheques towards part repayment. The Court held that clear admissions in pleadings are substantive and can form the foundation of rights and liabilities. It further held that the amount retained by the defendant represented a debt, and that an acknowledgment of liability need not always be embodied in a separate written refund agreement if the pleadings themselves disclose a subsisting obligation. The audited balance-sheet also carried significance, since an entry showing advances from customers could amount to acknowledgment of liability. At the same time, disputes on the full quantum of refund and interest raised triable issues.

Conclusion: The defendant was not entitled to unconditional leave. Leave to defend was granted only on condition of deposit of the acknowledged amount, and the summary suit was disposed of accordingly.

---