2013 (12) TMI 1719 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Review of the judgment and order dated 10.04.2012.
2. Alleged admission of liability by Durga Builders in its balance sheet.
3. Alleged forgery and fraud in the appeal process.
4. Applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Summary:

1. Review of the Judgment and Order Dated 10.04.2012:
The review petition challenges the judgment and order of this Court dated 10.04.2012, which reversed the learned Single Judge's decision allowing MGF's application u/r XII Rule 6 CPC for a decree on admission against Durga Builders.

2. Alleged Admission of Liability by Durga Builders in its Balance Sheet:
MGF filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,56,82,220/- based on three Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs) allegedly given to Durga Builders. MGF claimed that Durga Builders admitted liability of Rs. 1,93,00,000/- in its balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2004. The learned Single Judge decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 1.93 crores based on this admission and the statement of Mr. R.K. Nanda, Managing Director of Durga Builders. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the admission was not "clear and unequivocal" and required a full trial to resolve the issues.

3. Alleged Forgery and Fraud in the Appeal Process:
MGF contended that the appeal was obtained through fraud, as the affidavit and vakalatnama were allegedly forged. The Court found no merit in this contention, noting that a duly stamped vakalatnama and other documents signed by Mr. Nanda were on record, thus dismissing the argument of forgery.

4. Applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
MGF argued that the acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheet extended the period of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court noted that even if the question of limitation was decided against Durga Builders, several issues, including the existence of a mortgage and the nature of the loan, remained unresolved and required a full trial. The Court emphasized that the balance sheet's acknowledgment could be explained away and was not unimpeachable evidence.

Conclusion:
The Court found no errors apparent or sufficient cause to recall its judgment and order dated 10.04.2012. The review petition was dismissed along with the pending application, with no order as to costs. The claims advanced by both parties must be tested at trial.