-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.614 OF 2004 In NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1953 OF 2002 In SUIT NO.3805 OF 2001 McKinsey & Company, Inc. : Appellant (Orig.Plaintiff ) V/s. M/s.Spantech : Respondent (Orig.Defendant ) ... Mr.Vishal Seth i/b. Mr.Ruben A. Fernandes for the appellant . Mr.M.L.Palan i/b.B.R.Oza & Co., for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : MARCH 23, 2009. P.C. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgement dated 7.7.2004 by which the learned single Judge has refused to grant a decree on admission. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is obvious from the writing dated 15.3.2001, exh.‘I’ at -: 2 :- page 86 that the respondent had admitted the receipt of an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- as advance against the order placed by the appellant for furniture for their office at 22nd floor, Express Towers, Mumbai. According to the learned counsel, by an earlier letter dated 20.2.2001 wrongly referred to by the learned single Judge as letter dated 10.6.2001, the respondent had admitted their liability to the extent of Rs.43,00,000/-. In fact, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the writing of 15.3.2001 is subsequent to the earlier letter dated 20.2.2001 and clearly shows that there is an admission of the liability to the extent of Rs.65,00,000/- even at a later date. Mr.Palan, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that it is not possible to equate the admission of receipt of an advance with the admission of a liability to repay the amount. The learned counsel relied on the affidavit-in-reply of the defendants dated 24.3.2004 wherein, in paragraph 30, the respondent has emphatically denied any liability to pay a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- or interest thereon. Earlier in the reply, the respondent has claimed their right to adjust Rs.43,00,000/- and other amounts. It appears from the contention of the parties that there were three contracts between the parties and the respondent has claimed an adjustment in respect of the amounts paid under these contracts. In this view of the matter, there is no reason -: 3 :- to disturb the finding of the learned single Judge that the respondent was claiming adjustment of the amount of Rs.43,00,000/- towards some other work, though a specific contract in respect of which adjustment was claimed is not specified. Nonetheless, it is correct that there is no admission of a liability which entitles the appellant to a decree on admission. 3. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. A.A. SAYED, J.