For a judgment upon admission to be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, the admission must be clear and unequivocal. Any admission which admits of two interpretations or some arguments cannot be the basis of a judgment.

ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the matter has been argued before us at length by both the parties, we, with consent of the parties, treat the appeal on the day's list and dispose of the same by the following judgment.

( 2 ) THERE shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.

( 3 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 20. 09. 2002 by which the learned judge of the first Court directed the defendant/appellant to furnish security within three weeks from the date and, in default, directed that the decree should be drawn up for a sum of Rs. 5,82,61,191. 15p. along with interim interest @ 6% ptr annum and interest on judgment @ 12% per annum. It was made clear in the said order that in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to furnish security, decree and consequential order will follow and the suit will stand disposed of.

( 4 ) PRIOR to the aforesaid order, another order dated 11. 09. 2002 was passed by the learned Judge recording therein that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,82,61,191. 15p. with the interim interest and interest on judgment. The plaintiff disclosed an account showing that the aforesaid sum is receivable from the defendant. It was also recorded that in order to arrive at the aforesaid sum the plaintiff had shown several 'pay-in-liability' aggregating to a sum of Rs. 91,45,79,817. 60p. and as against the aforesaid sum, the plaintiff showed an adjustment of Rs. 85,18,663. 45p. The learned Judge recorded that the defendant in its affidavit has admitted all the three items showing 'pay-in-Liability'. It was also recorded that after admitting the said liability, the defendant has failed to show how the said sum was paid to the plaintiff and, as such, the learned Judge of the first Court was of the view that the money claimed by the plaintiff 'prima facie appears to be payable'. After coming to the said finding, the learned Judge of the first Court directed the defendant to secure the aforesaid sum by way of a Bank Guarantee or Cash security or by immovable property and, thereafter, adjourned the matter to enable the learned Counsel for the defendant to take in struction. It appears that as the defendant failed to furnish the security on the adjourned day, i. e. on 20. 12. 2002, the decree for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,82,61,191. 15p. was passed.

( 5 ) IT is obvious from the reading of those two orders that the learned Judge of the first Court passed a judgment upon admission on the basis of the pleadings between the parties.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff/respondent, an existing company, regulating dealing in security in the stock exchange, filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,82,61,191. 15p. with interest. The defendant/ appellant is a stock broker and a member of the plaintiff/respondent with a membership code. At the material time, defendant/appellant was a director of the plaintiff/respondent.

( 7 ) NOW looking at the pleadings, this Court finds that at page 26 para 80 of the petition Hied by the plaintiff/respondent before the learned Judge of the first Court, the following averments have been made: "the petitioner states that the said respondent has clearly admitted and/or unequivocally acknowledged that the aforesaid sums are due and payable on account of margin money. The said respondent, however, failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid sums. The petitioner states that having regard to such admission the petitioner is entitled to a judgment upon admission for the aforesaid sums of Rs. 5,82,61,191. 15p. together with interest @ 0. 9% from 8th March, 2001 till repayment. "

( 8 ) WHILE dealing with the said averments, the defendant, in para 35 and at page 19 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed before the learned first Court, denied the claim made in para 30 of the petition. The assertions made in para 35 of the affidavit are set out below: "with reference to para 30 of the petition, it is denied and dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document