JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. In support of the money claim in the suit, these two applications have been carried by the plaintiff: GA No. 100 of 2011 for judgment on admission and GA No. 401 of 2011 for orders in the nature of attachment before judgment. The short claim in the plaint is that between April and July, 2003 the plaintiff granted loan of divers sums to the defendant amounting to Rs. 1 crore. The plaint says that the defendant has admitted and unequivocally acknowledged receipt of the inter-corporate deposits. The admission is said to have been in the balance-sheets filed by the defendant through the years upto the year ended March 31, 2009. The plaint claims that only in April, 2010, the plaintiff requested the defendant (surprisingly paragraph 6 of the plaint refers to the first defendant) to repay the amount of Rs. 1 crore "along with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum." The claim on account of interest is the first jarring note in the plaint since the inter-corporate deposits and the averments relating thereto at paragraph 2 of the plaint do not speak of any interest. Paragraph 8 of the plaint proceeds to record the issuance of a notice by advocate representing the plaintiff on September 14, 2010 where the claim was made for Rs. 1 crore together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The plaintiff has not really pressed the application for attachment before judgment. The plaintiff has insisted on the decree for Rs. 1 crore on the basis of the admission contained in the successive balance-sheets of the defendant, less an amount of Rs. 37 lakh and odd which the plaintiff has received subsequent to the institution of the suit. The plaintiff says that once the defendant has admitted the transaction and has admitted the quantum in successive balance-sheets, the plaintiff is not called upon to either establish the circumstances surrounding the original transaction or any other matter in support of its claim. The plaintiff refers to Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code and says that the principle recognised therein is to ensure that matters over which there can be no difference between the parties are not stretched and carried to a protracted trial. 2. The plaintiff refers to Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code and says that the principle recognised therein is to ensure that matters over which there can be no difference between the parties are not stretched and carried to a protracted trial. 2. The plaintiff refers to the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant and the averments in paragraph 4 thereof and the subparagraphs thereunder. The plaintiff says that it is evident that the defendant has acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 1 crore and several other sums and the defence is that such amount was repaid by the defendant or adjusted against accounts relating to sister concerns of the parties. The plaintiff relies, in particular, on paragraph 4 (vii) of the affidavit where the defendant refers to errors having crept into the balance-sheets of the defendant. The plaintiff says that such "errors" could not have continued for nearly a decade without the defendant or its auditors noticing the same and without there being any basis therefor. The plaintiff also insists that against the admission evident in the defendant's affidavit that the plaintiff has made the payment that it claims, the defendant has alleged such repayments to have been made though it is evident that the repayments, even if made, were not by cheques. 3. The defendant refers to the association of the parties in course of their business relating to coal-mines. The defendant also refers to other transactions and some kind of arrangement between the two groups of persons who were then at the helm of the parties. The defendant says that a mere admission on the defendant's part without the plaintiff attempting to otherwise assert or establish its claim should not be accepted. It is the defendant's contention that an admission should be seen by way of corroboration of the plaintiffs claim and not as a total substitute for the plaintiff's obligation to assert and establish its claim. 4. The defendant refers to the balance-sheets of the plaintiff between the financial years ending March 31, 2003 and March 31, 2008. It is the defendant's endeavour to demonstrate that it would be evident from the figures appearing in the balance-sheets pertaining to the relevant financial years and those pertaining to the previous financial years that in most cases the difference between the two figures was not in excess of Rs. 1 crore. It is the defendant's endeavour to demonstrate that it would be evident from the figures appearing in the balance-sheets pertaining to the relevant financial years and those pertaining to the previous financial years that in most cases the difference between the two figures was not in excess of Rs. 1 crore. Such argument of the defendant does not appeal since the two final figures that appear under the heading "Loans to others" in the plaintiffs balance-sheets for the financial years ending March 31, 2003 to March 31, 2007 club all payments and receipts under such head and save in respect of financial year ended March 31, 2007, where the total amount outstanding under such head is to the tune of Rs. 14 lakh, the amount outstanding in every other financial year is in excess of Rs. 1 crore and it was quite possible that the sums indicated in the plaintiffs balance-sheets were after taking into account receipts obtained from other parties to whom loans had been given. However, what strikes out is the figure relating to the head "Loans to others" in respect of the financial year ended March 31, 2007. If the total quantum of loan given by the plaintiff to others that remained outstanding in course of such financial year was to the tune of Rs. 14 lakh, it would imply that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1 crore or, at the very least, that the plaintiff was not aware that the defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1 crore. 5. The plaintiff has sought to rely on statements in support of the particulars pertaining to loans given to others during the relevant financial years. It is the admitted position that such statements, which form part of the plaintiffs affidavit-in-reply and its supplementary affidavit, did not form part of the balance-sheets and were subsequently obtained. However, the statement for the relevant financial year and the manner in which the same has been prepared, arouse suspicion. Till the financial year ended March 31, 2007, the plaintiff's balance-sheets contain two headings under the same schedule: "Loans to others" and "Advances." It was only beginning the financial year ended March 31, 2008 that loans and advances were clubbed together. Till the financial year ended March 31, 2007, the plaintiff's balance-sheets contain two headings under the same schedule: "Loans to others" and "Advances." It was only beginning the financial year ended March 31, 2008 that loans and advances were clubbed together. In the statements in support of the particulars on account of "Loans to others" for financial years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, the details furnished may be accepted. However, the figures furnished and appearing at page 48 of the affidavit-in-reply detailing the various parties to whom loans made available by the plaintiff were outstanding, prima facie, cannot be accepted. The total at page 48 is about Rs. 9.6 crore. The total corresponds to the total indicated in the balance sheet (the relevant page in the same affidavit is page 64) under the heading "Advances." If there was a distinction made in the balance-sheet between "Advances" and "Loans to others," there is clearly an attempt to deceive in the plaintiff furnishing particulars in respect of "Advances" and attempting to pass off the same as particulars relating to "Loans to others." 6. There are even greater difficulties that stand in the plaintiffs way. To begin with, it is difficult to accept that an inter-corporate deposit (or a number of inter-corporate deposits) is made without documents exchanged in support thereof. Even more surprisingly, the inter-corporate deposit is made or several inter-corporate deposits are made, without there being any agreement as to interest. Paragraph 2 of the plaint does not plead any agreement on account of interest. It is only a couple of paragraphs later that the first verbal demand made early in 2010 is mentioned that records a claim on account of interest. 7. The plaintiff has referred to a judgment reported at AIR 1962 Cal. 115 (Bengal Silk's case). The plaintiff has also relied on judgments reported at 45 Comp. Case 67 and 47 Comp. Case 15. 8. In the Bengal Silk's case, the question that arose before the Division Bench was as to whether a particular entry or a particular writing amounted to an acknowledgement within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 that corresponds to section 18 of the present Limitation Act of 1963. The issue was not as to admission but as to acknowledgement for the purpose of saving limitation. The issue was not as to admission but as to acknowledgement for the purpose of saving limitation. Qualitatively, an admission is quite far removed from an acknowledgement within the meaning of section 18 of the 1963 Act. The two other decisions cited by the plaintiff cover a creditor's winding-up petition, the second report being the appellate order arising out of the first. Again, in such case the Bengal Silk's proposition has been relied upon for the purpose of assessing whether the petitioning-creditor's claim was barred by the laws of limitation. Section 18 of the 1963 Act was at the heart of these judgments. 9. The defendant has placed a judgment reported at AIR 1958 SC 886 . A part of paragraph 9 of the report has been placed where the Supreme Court, in the context of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, has referred to Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code and the proviso to the first sub-rule therein. In similar vein, the plaintiff has referred to a judgment reported at 1999 (8) SCC 396 . The discussion at paragraphs 21 to 29 of the report refers to Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, Order 8 Rule 5 thereof and the fundamental principle behind section 58 of the Evidence Act. These judgments instruct that notwithstanding there being an admission, the Court is not bound to blindly pass a decree on the basis of the admission without taking into account any explanation or justification that may have been proffered by the defendant. In fact, in dealing with Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code, paragraph 29 of the report in the most recent judgment requires a Court to be cautious and not recklessly allow the claim only on the rule of pleading that an allegation made had to be specifically denied. 10. In the more conservative sense, Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code has been read in certain cases to give the Court the authority to rely on an admission made after the institution of the suit and dispose of a part of the claim. The word "otherwise" appearing in the rule has been read ejusdem generis with the preceding part of the rule. The word "otherwise" appearing in the rule has been read ejusdem generis with the preceding part of the rule. Though it is not necessary to restrict the operation of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code to admissions made after the institution of the suit, there has to be a distinction between admissions made after disputes have arisen between parties and admissions made prior thereto. While it is true that an admission has to be taken as a whole and the conditions attached to the admission cannot be divorced from the admission while accepting the same, even the plainest of admissions require the person making the admission to be afforded an opportunity to explain the same. An admission, at the end of the day, is the best form of evidence but it is only a piece of evidence and not the fact itself. In view of the sketchy claim made by the plaintiff and its inability to demonstrate anything in support thereof-- not even a letter of demand from the year 2003 till the verbal demand of early 2010 - there are several gaps that need to be filled before the plaintiff is entitled to the decree that it claims. 11. There is a further anomaly which the defendant has pointed out. The defendant says that it is the plaintiffs case in this suit and in a suit filed contemporaneously with this one that the claim here is Rs. 1 crore and the claim in the other one is about Rs. 4.26 crore. The plaintiff refers to the balance-sheets of the plaintiff for the last several years to demonstrate that in almost all of the years, the total amount outstanding on account of loans to others is less than the combined principal claim in these two suits of Rs. 5.26 crore. 12. On facts and on the law governing the facts, G.A. No. 100 of 2011 is liable to be dismissed, but since the defendant has offered to put in the balance principal sum claimed by the plaintiff to show the defendant's bona fides, the defendant is permitted four weeks' time to furnish an amount of Rs. 64 lakh with the Registrar, Original Side. The Registrar will invest the money in a short-term fixed deposit with any nationalized bank within the vicinity of this Court, pending further orders in this suit. 13. 64 lakh with the Registrar, Original Side. The Registrar will invest the money in a short-term fixed deposit with any nationalized bank within the vicinity of this Court, pending further orders in this suit. 13. Since the defendant has, of its own accord, offered to make the deposit, in default of the deposit being made within the time permitted, there will be a decree in the sum of Rs. 64 lakh in favour of the plaintiff. Such decree will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from today till payment. 14. G.A. No. 100 of 2011 and G.A. No. 401 of 2011 stand disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.