Skip to main content

Mere mentioning of claim in the balance sheets as liability would not amount to a clear admission of debt

Cause Title : MSTC Ltd. v/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Appeal No. 10/2023, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, At Mumbai

Date of Judgment/Order : 07/08/2023

Corum : Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

Citied: 

  1. Uttam Singh Duggal vs. United Bank of India & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120
  2. Ultramatrix Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors 2007 (4) Mh. L. J. 847
  3. Inteltech Automation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr. 2011 (1) Mh. L. J. 935
  4. Shantez & Anr. vs. Applause Bhansali Films Pvt. Ltd. Company, Mumbai & Ors. 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 37
  5. Pankaj Unit No. 1 Housing Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Oshiwara Land Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 203
  6. Microcosm Metal & Energy vs. State Bank of India 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7896
  7. Bareilly Electricity Supply vs. The Workmen & Ors. 1971 (2) SCC 617
  8. Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr. (2021) 6 SCC 366

Background

The Respondent Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) had filed before the DRT for recovery of loan with interest under Rule 12 (5) of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks Act (RDDB). Copies of the said annual reports taken from Defendant’s website were also tendered in support of the application. It was contended that in the Annual Report pertaining to the financial year 2011-2012, Defendant had admitted its liability towards the Applicant to the tune of ₹186,03,00,000/-and has further shown a sum of ₹5,05,00,000/-as contingent liability pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. It was further alleged that in the annual report of the Defendant company pertaining to the financial year 2012-2013, a sum of ₹203,70,00,000/- has been shown as its liability towards the Applicant and also mentions a contingent liability of ₹13,85,00,000/. Similarly, the annual reports of the Defendant company for the year 2013-2014 show the liability towards the Applicant as ₹245,74,00,000/-and the contingent liability is shown as ₹22,70,00,000/-. Likewise, the annual reports of the Defendant company pertaining to the financial years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 mention a sum of ₹ 222,51,00,000/-as liability. Further, in the independent auditor’s report forming part of the above-mentioned annual reports, it has been expressly admitted that the Defendant company has defaulted in repaying the debts aggregating to ₹142,62,00,000/- due to the Applicant.


The Defendant countered that as there are pending litigations on this issue, as per the prudential norms  and conservative method of accounting followed by the Defendant company, it is mandatory that liabilities must be provided for in the accounts by making adequate disclosure by way of note to the annual accounts of the company whether by way of real or contingent liabilities which are not acknowledged as debts. It is contended that the Applicant has misconstrued the term ‘contingent liability’. It only means liabilities that may be incurred by an entity depending on the outcome of an uncertain future event. What is stated by the Defendant in the annual reports is only that certain monies may be payable by the Defendant to the Applicant in the original application which is pending adjudication before the D.R.T. The same can in no way be construed to mean that the Defendant company has admitted the liability.

Judgment

The DRAT referring to the the above-cited decisions observed that , it is evident that for the statement in the balance sheet to be accepted as admission, it has to be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. Admission, undoubtedly is the best form of evidence but where a party relies on the admission of the opposite side as evidence, it is essential that the whole admission must be taken into consideration. Any explanation or rider to that admission cannot be ignored.

Setting aside the order of the DRT, the DRT held that in the present case, the Appellant has been disputing the claim of the Respondent Bank on various grounds. The proceedings before the D.R.T. was questioned on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, and also on the ground that the claim under the agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent could not be strictly construed as a ‘debt’ coming within the purview of the RDDB & FI Act. The Appellant had challenged the claim of the Respondent before the civil court at Alipore. 

After having raised all these contentions in challenging the claim of the Respondent, it cannot be said that the mere mentioning of the claim in the balance sheets as liability would amount to an unambiguous, unequivocal or clear admission on the part of the Appellant. The notes accompanying the statements of account has to be read together with the description of the liability highlighted in the balance sheets. When the fact regarding the pendency of litigation before the D.R.T. and the Alipore court is explained in the note attached to the balance sheets, it can definitely be not stated that the admission is unequivocal. There is no such admission in the pleadings of the Appellant. The mentioning of the liability in the balance sheet with a rider that there is litigation pending between the Appellant and the Respondent would clarify that it is not a clear admission on the part of the Appellant. An admission can always be explained by the party making it. In the present case, the explanation follows the purported admission. The explanation for the alleged admission in the balance sheets comes in the form of a notes attached to it. The intention for incorporating a provision to grant a decree on admission is to hasten the disposal of matters where there is no possibility of a contest arising in view of the admission.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more