TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f facts culminating in the filing of the suit are that, the respondent had approached the petitioner to avail of a short-term loan of a sum of Rs. 4 crores. It was further represented on behalf of the respondent that, the said loan would be repayable with interest @15% per annum. Additionally, the respondent was obliged to secure the said loan. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioner on 12 June, 2015 remitted a sum of Rs. 4 crores to the respondent by Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS). The respondent duly received the said amount. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13 June, 2016. The Memorandum of Understanding records that in view of the representation and assurances made by the respondent, the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... compelled to present the post-dated cheque which was lying as security with the petitioner. However, the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. On 6 September, 2018, the respondent deposited an aggregate sum of Rs. 4,89,863/- towards Tax Deducted at Source to the credit of the petitioner. Upon dishonour of the cheque dated 1 July, 2018, the respondent furnished a substitute cheque dated 1March, 2019 which was also dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, by a demand notice dated 15 April, 2019 the petitioner called upon the respondent to make payment of the entire loan amount alongwith accrued interest. 4. On 1 October, 2019, the respondent issued another cheque bearing No.003937 dated 1 October, 2019 from ICICI Bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the event, the Respondent failing to show-cause, or not showing sufficient cause, the Respondent be directed to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 6,27,72,055/- (Rupees Six Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Seventy Two thousand and Fifty Five only) or for such other sum as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner; e) The Respondent be directed to file and affidavit of assets relating to their fixed and other assets, properties and bank accounts; f) All assets and properties of the Respondent as mentioned in paragraph 5 and such further assets as may be disclosed by the Respondent be attached; g) Ad-interim orders in terms of the prayers made herein above; h) Costs of and incidental to the proceedings; 7. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titute a "commercial dispute". In this connection reliance was placed on an unreported judgment delivered by a Single Judge in Ladymoon Towers Private Limited Vs. Mahendra Investment Advisors Private Limited dated 13 August, 2021. Accordingly, it is contended that the suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Division of this Court and should treated as an Ordinary Civil Suit which ought to have been filed in the Original Side of this Court. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent that, no copy of the plaint has yet been served on the respondent and hence, there has been no compliance with the mandatory provision of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that in view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such an admission, the plaintiff is entitled as a matter of right to obtain at once a judgment to the extent of the admission. The Rule also contemplates that either party at any stage of the suit may obtain judgment or an appropriate order to get rid off so much of the suit to which there is no controversy. The Rule also confers a very wide discretion of the Court (Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2740). In Ravees Chandra Jain vs. Rajrani Jain (2015) 8 SCC 428, it was held that, Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers a wide discretion on Court to pass a judgment at any stage of suit on the basis of admission of facts made in pleadings or otherwise without waiting for a determination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the petitioner. 12. I do not find merit in the argument of the respondent, that this is not a "commercial dispute" within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. On the contrary, I am of the view that this is a classic commercial dispute which falls within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Explanation (a) of Section 2(c) of the Act. The case cited by the respondent of Ladymoon Towers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is inapposite and distinguishable to the facts of the instant case. In the said decision, it was held that, the loan transaction was a "friendly" of "hand" loan and had been advanced without execution of any documents or mercantile documents. I find that, in the facts of the instant case, ther....