account between the Plaintiff and Biotor and that the amount has been paid by Biotor to the Plaintiff. It is submitted that these facts were not brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge. It is submitted that if there is a running account, then in such cases summary suit is not maintainable. He has relied upon the Division Bench's order passed in Appeal No. 712 of 1986 in Summons for Judgment No. 274 of 1986 in Summary Suit No. 2506 of 1985 dated 11th August, 1986, wherein it has observed that the Summary Suit was not maintainable if there is running account between the parties. He submitted that the Appellant was entitled to raise this question because it was a new question and it was raised for the first time before the Appellate Court. He has then invited our attention to the bills of exchange and has submitted that the invoices which were mentioned in the bills of exchange, were fabricated and fraud played by Biotor Industries Ltd. Secondly, he has submitted that the Plaintiff had no right to adjust the said amount of Rs.14 crores to the other debts of Biotor Industries Ltd. He has also invited our attention to the letter dated 24th December, 2009 written by Wadia Ghandy & Co. to the Defendant, in which, in paragraphs 2 (vii) and 2 (viii), there is a reference to the running account and reconciliation of accounts, though it is mentioned that the Defendant was not concerned in any manner about the said amount since it was the issue between the Plaintiff and Biotor. He has also invited our attention to the letter dated 9th December, 2009 written by the Defendant to Wadia Ghandy & Co. and more particularly, paragraph 9, in which it was
