The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judgment on admission can be passed based on clear and unambiguous admissions of liability, even if the admission is coupled with conditions. The judgment also affirms the importance of verifying the registration status of a partnership firm before dismissing a suit on the ground of non-registration.

JUDGMENT :

1. By virtue of this notice of motion, the plaintiff seeks a decree on admission under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’).

2. The background facts necessary for the determination of this notice of motion, can be stated as under:-

(a) The plaintiff-firm’s bid for construction of residential buildings, amenity buildings and onsite infrastructure works on plot bearing S.No. 239 (part), CTS No. 827-D at Dindoshi, Mumbai was accepted by the defendant, which is a company fully owned by the Government of Mahabharata vide Tender Acceptance letter dated 6th April 1999. A formal contract came to be executed and the defendant issued the work order on 28th April 1999. In the said work order, it was mentioned that M/s.Shirish Patel & Associates Consultants Private Limited would perform and act as “Engineer” as provided in the contract.

(b) It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had mobilized the resources for expeditious completion of the work in terms of the contract. However, it could not execute the work on account of the events, acts and omissions attributable to the defendant, including :

(a) Non-availability of approach road to site.

(b) Delay in issue of commencement certificate from SRA.

(c) Delay in demarcation.

(d) Delay in issue of drawings for construction purposes.

(e) Change in the scope of work.

(c) Even after commencement of work, the defendant committed default in payments. There was abnormal and undue delay in making payment of R.A. Bills raised by the plaintiff. Yet the plaintiff completed 85% of the Rehab buildings by April 2000. Substantial amounts remained unpaid. The plaintiff raised claims under various heads. Mr. Shirish Patel, was nominated to independently evaluate the claims raised by the plaintiff. Mr. Shirish Patel submitted a report giving his assessment on the admissibility of the claims raised by the plaintiff. The Principal Secretary (Hsg.) and M.D. of the defendant took a decision that an amount of Rs. 4.85 Crores was payable for the work done upto-date, as conveyed in the letter dated 22nd June 2005. Even the said amount was not paid. The plaintiff continuously pursued the matter with the defendant. Ultimately, vide letter dated 2nd January 2006, the plaintiff was informed that the defendant terminated the contract.

(d) The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant under section 80 of the Code and raised a monetary demand. As the defendant did not comply with the demand, the plaintiff instituted the suit raising various claims, including the damages for illegal termination of contract, amounting to Rs.230 crores more particularly described in the Statement of Claim (Exh.'R'). By way of amendment, the plaintiff has sought a further sum of Rs.357,57,00,000/- as an additional claim towards loss of profit, loss of business and opportunity etc., as shown in the Additional Statement of Claim (Exh.'S').

3. The defendant has resisted the claim by filing written statement. The tenability of the suit is called in question as the plaintiff firm is not a registered partnership firm. On merits, the substance of the resistance put-forth by the defendant is that the plaintiff was at fault and the failure of the plaintiff to execute the work in accordance with the terms of the contract resulted in project getting delayed. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount under any of the heads including damages and alleged loss of profit etc. The defendant has, inter-alia, contended that the defendant was ready to pay an amount of Rs.4.85 crores as awarded by the Engineer and accepted by the Managing Director of the defendant provided the plaintiff submitted ‘no claim certificate’ and accepted the said amount as a full and final settlement of all the claims.

4. Issues have been settled. The following issues bear on the prayer for decree on admission:-

“………………

(2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs are registered Partnership Firm registered under the P