JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner plaintiff in a suit for declaration states that the defendant is holding the amounts deposited by the plaintiff and amounts received from time to time by the defendant to be kept in No Lien Account in terms of order of Appellate Authority for industrial and financial reconstruction as a trustee for the benefit of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has sought for a judgment on admission in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,70,612/- and further sum of Rs. 64,36,078/- being the interest payable by the defendant on the due date calculated upto November 30, 2009 as per the Statement 'C' Annexure 'K' or alternatively for direction upon the defendant for payment of interest lying with the defendant. The prayer of plaintiff for judgment on admission arises out of the said suit on the facts that the plaintiff company upon the finalization of accounts of the plaintiff for the period upto December 31, 1995 found the accumulated losses of the plaintiff company and was deemed to be a sick industrial company within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA") and in that view of the matter, on August 2, 1996 the plaintiff made a reference under Section 15 of SICA before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as "BIFR"). By an order dated October 15, 1996 the plaintiff company was declared as a sick industrial company and the direction was given for framing of a scheme for revival or rehabilitation of the plaintiff company under Section 17(3) of SICA and as such the defendant, Industrial Development Bank of India was appointed as operating agent. The plaintiff company preferred an appeal against the order of BIFR before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter to as "AAIFR") which was registered as Appeal No. 108 of 1999. The Appellate Authority directed sale of Ambattur and Walajapet Units of the plaintiff in the State of Tamil Nadu and constituted an Asset Sale Committee comprising of representatives of the defendant, Canara Bank, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and a director of the plaintiff for conducting sale of the units of the plaintiff. The Appellate Authority directed sale of Ambattur and Walajapet Units of the plaintiff in the State of Tamil Nadu and constituted an Asset Sale Committee comprising of representatives of the defendant, Canara Bank, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and a director of the plaintiff for conducting sale of the units of the plaintiff. AAIFR further directed that the expenses relating to work of the Asset Sale Committee will be met from the balance lying with the defendant in No Lien Account and directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in No Lien Account with the defendant, then known as IDBI. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff on or about November 20,1999 deposited a sum of Rs.10 lacs with the defendant at Chennai in the said account and on March 20, 2000 the plaintiff deposited a balance of Rs.10 lacs with the defendant at Chennai, in No Lien Account. The said Committee thereafter proceeded to sell unit at the highest offer of price of Rs.215 lacs in respect of Ambattur Unit of the plaintiff and further to sell Walajapet Unit of the plaintiff at a price of Rs.36 lacs. The order dated September 12, 2001 passed by AAIFR will reflect that the amount realised on sale of various assets of the plaintiff company, shall be kept in an interest bearing No Lien Account with the Operating Agency, IDBI Bank. It was observed by AAIFR in its order dated February 5, 2002 that it was no longer possible to revive the plaintiff company and dismissed the appeal with the direction to the Operating Agency to deposit the entire amount lying with it with the Register, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta. On being aggrieved the plaintiff filed a writ petition in the Appellate Side of the Hon'ble Court being W.P. No. 2221 (W) of 2002 for setting aside the impugned orders passed by BIFR as well as AAIFR and various other reliefs and by an order dated April 1, 2002, the Hon'ble Court in the writ petition stayed the operation of the said order dated 5th February, 2002 for fortnight. On February 5, 2002 the AAIFR has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff directing the defendant to make over the amount lying with it in No Lien Account to the Register, Original Side, so the defendant had received an aggregate of sum of Rs.147 lacs. On February 5, 2002 the AAIFR has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff directing the defendant to make over the amount lying with it in No Lien Account to the Register, Original Side, so the defendant had received an aggregate of sum of Rs.147 lacs. During 2004 and 2005 the plaintiff approached various secured creditors for One Time Settlement and in 2005 a scheme of compromise with its secured creditors was framed under which payment of One Time Settlement amount to all secured creditors of the plaintiff was made. It is contended that the plaintiff filed an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 for convening a meeting of the secured creditors of the plaintiff for considering the said Compromise Scheme and the Hon'ble Court had passed an order dated April 5, 2005 for convening a meeting of the secured creditors of the plaintiff company and the revised Compromise Scheme was framed which stood sanctioned by an order dated September 14, 2005 of the Hon'ble Court. A specific case as made out in the application for judgement on admission is that in November, 2005 the defendant had alleged that out of the sum of Rs.147 lacs received by it, a principal sum of Rs.98.52 lacs was lying with it in No Lien Account and a request was made to the plaintiff to give its consent for appropriation of the said settlement amount of Rs.70.86 lacs and so the plaintiff by a letter dated November 30, 2005 accorded its consent to the defendant for appropriation of the settlement amount of Rs.70.86 lacs out of the money lying with it in the No Lien Account and directed the defendant to pay the balance sum of Rs.27.66 lacs by a demand draft to Industrial Investment Bank of India against the settlement amount payable by the plaintiff to the said IIBI. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submitted that though there appears an admission in respect of the sum as depicted as per Annexure- 'O' of the written statement but in view of the letter dated November 30, 2005 of the plaintiff's company addressed to the defendant, the judgment on admission cannot be granted at this stage of the suit. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant submitted that though there appears an admission in respect of the sum as depicted as per Annexure- 'O' of the written statement but in view of the letter dated November 30, 2005 of the plaintiff's company addressed to the defendant, the judgment on admission cannot be granted at this stage of the suit. On behalf of the plaintiff, my attention is invited to the reliefs prayed in the suit and then to the averments made in the paragraph 25 and in paragraph 29 of the written statement wherein the defendant has specifically averred that the details of receipts and utilisation thereof for Rs.147 lacs (including Rs.20 lacs deposited towards expenses) are described by way of the table prepared vide Annexure- 'O' which provides the details of the payment from No Lien Account. It reflects that total amount received including the deposit of Rs.20 lacs by company is sum of Rs.147 lacs and the admitted balance amount lying with IDBI payable to company from initial deposit for expenses is a sum of Rs.4,70,612/-. The averment in paragraph 29 corroborates the facts as disclosed in paragraph 25 of the written statement to this effect that the statement of accounts being the annexure 'O' will speak for itself that except an amount of Rs.4,70,612/-, there is no fund at present lying with the defendant in "No Lien Account" or no other account maintained by the defendant in respect of the plaintiff. In this context, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submitted that there is a clear admission of the sum of Rs.4,70,612/- and the Court can readily grant a judgment on admission on the admitted facts and further invited my attention to an order dated 8.5.2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in GA 1555 of 2017 whereby an order in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the petition was granted in favour of the plaintiff with the observation that whether the letter dated 3.5.2005 will take away in advantage that the plaintiff has gained would be a matter to be decided when the judgment upon admission would be taken up on merits as the court even on construction of the said letter may form an opinion that the plaintiff would still be entitled to such judgment upon admission. By the said order the written statement was allowed to be amended. By the said order the written statement was allowed to be amended. An appeal was taken out against the said order before the Division Bench in APO No. 336 of 2017 challenging the order by which the written statement was allowed to be amended by obliterating an admission as made by the defendant in paragraphs 25 and 29 of the original written statement in view of Annexure 'O'. The Hon'ble Division Bench relied on the decision in case of, Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Ladha Ram & Co reported in (1976) 4 SCC 320 , wherein it was observed that it was not permissible for a defendant to repudiate a clear admission to deprive the plaintiff of the valuable right accrued to him as it is against the law. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that it is not possible that the admission may have been made by mistake against a matter which has to be established at the time of trial and in such a situation, an amendment application may be allowed to explain away the admission or otherwise detracted therefrom; but the admission itself cannot be wished away or permitted to be struck out. Thus, the order impugned was flawed in so far as it permitted the perceived admission to be struck out and obliterated, although, the respondent has a chance to explain away such admission or make out a case which would reveal that the admission may have been the result of a mistake. This was how APO 336 of 2017 and GA 2068 of 2017 were allowed in favour of the present defendant. Admittedly the present amendment has been taken out by the defendant, in letter and spirit of the aforesaid order and direction passed by the Division Bench of this High Court. Therefore, the issue as to whether an admission made on the part of the defendant in paragraphs 25 and 29 of the original written statement is by mistake is the issue for decision in the suit in accordance with the evidence to be adduced during the trial by the parties to the suit, as it is reflected in unequivocal term from the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The amendment of the written statement has been sought for on behalf of the defendant in GA 3455 of 2017, wherein explanation has been embodied vide amendment of the written statement in various paragraphs of the written statement including paragraphs 23(a), 23(b), 23(c), 23(d), 23(e), 23(f), 23(g) and 24(a), 26, 26(a), 27, 28(a), 28(b) whereby the defendant has explained about averments made by mistake, nevertheless in terms of the direction of the Division Bench, the admission vide paragraphs 25 relating to annexure O remains unaltered save and except the annexure O not having been annexed and made part of the amended written statement, as per the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff. Since the admission has not been obliterated in the present application for amendment of the written statement in terms of the direction passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, I find that it would not be justified for this Court to grant a judgment on admission as prayed for in GA 1774 of 2016 filed on behalf of the plaintiff, particularly because of the observation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench that whether the admission being part of the averment made in the original written statement was by mistake or was by mistaken notion has to be decided in the trial of the suit. However, a statement being annexure O where under the defendant has admitted the balance sum of Rs.4,70,612/- has not been made part of the amended written statement. Therefore, I direct the defendant to enlist the statement of account in respect of the "No Lien Account" being annexure O as part of the written statement. In context of the above discussion, GA 1774 of 2016 is disposed of with a direction that the relief as sought for in the suit itself be decided after conclusion of the trial on evidence. Consequently, the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff in GA 1774 of 2016 is not acceded to by this Court at this stage as the moot issue in the suit has to be decided in accordance with the evidence to be adduced by the parties to the suit. Ergo, GA 3455 of 2017 filed on behalf of the defendant for amendment of the written statement in the manner indicated in red ink in annexure E is allowed and be made. Ergo, GA 3455 of 2017 filed on behalf of the defendant for amendment of the written statement in the manner indicated in red ink in annexure E is allowed and be made. The department is directed to carry out the amendment within six weeks from the date hereof with liberty to the defendant to reverify the written statement after amendment. Accordingly, GA 1774 of 2016 and GA 3455 of 2017 are disposed of. Parties to bear their respective costs.