The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions before passing judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

IA No. 16458/2011 (under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on behalf of the Plaintiff)

1. The Plaintiff has filed the present application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking a decree against the Defendants No. 1 and 2 on admissions.

2. As per the Plaintiff, he is engaged in the business of distribution of packaged and processed drinking water, soda and allied products.

3. The Defendant No. 1 is stated to be engaged in the business of processing, packaging and supply of water, soda and allied products in the name of "DIRECTOR SPECIAL". The Plaintiff claims to have been approached by Defendant No.4 as an agent of Defendants No.1 and 2 for the purposes of distribution of the water, soda and allied products manufactured by the said Defendants.

4. The Plaintiff inter alia with some other persons decided to enter into a partnership to carry out the business of distribution of packaged and processed drinking water, soda and allied products under the name and style of "M/s. Ozone Enterprises". M/s. Ozone Enterprises entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with “M/s. Ikon Industries” for distributorship of packaged drinking water, soda and allied products under the name and style of Director Special (herein referred to as the material). As per the terms of the MOU the Plaintiff was to be the sole stockist/wholesale dealer of the said material. M/s Ozone Enterprises was to make a Security Deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-.

5. The case of the Plaintiff is that after the commencement of the MOU dated 16.07.2007 the 2 partners of M/s Ozone Enterprises left the partnership concern and the Plaintiff decided to continue with the MOU as a sole proprietor of M/s Swastik Enterprises. The MOU was modified by letter dated the 06.09.2007. The Plaintiff paid the amount of the Security Deposit, deposited with M/s. Ikon industries by the erstwhile partners of M/s Ozone enterprises to them and accordingly the Security Deposit was acknowledged by Defendant No. 1 and 2 solely in favour of the Plaintiff.

6. The Plaintiff claims to have placed a purchase order on Defendant No.2 and collected the material from the said Defendant for distribution. The Plaintiff thereafter requested for more material however the said Defendant never supplied the same. Somewhere in the month of September 2007 the Plaintiff became aware that the said Defendant was supplying material to M/s Raju agency in contravention to the terms of the MOU. As per the information of the Plaintiff the Defendant was supplying material to other parties other than the Defendant No. 3 as well. The Plaintiff contends that there was a breach of the terms of the MOU by the Defendants and accordingly the Plaintiff sought for a refund of the Security Deposit along with damages for the sum of Rs 5,00,000/–. The Defendant No. 2 through the Defendant No. 4 is stated to have given a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount within 3 months.

7. This cheque when presented to the bankers was dishonoured. The Plaintiff thus filed the present suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs 20,00,000/-with interest thereon.

8. The Defendant No.2 has disputed the claim of the Plaintiff. As per the written statement filed by the said Defendant the agreement dated 16.07.2007 is admitted however as per the Defendants no firm by the name of M/s Ozone enterprises had come into existence and the 3 persons who were doing business together had serious differences and disputes and accordingly it was only the Plaintiff who was left behind.

9. The said Defendant admits the receipt of the Security Deposit of Rs 15,00,000/- however contends that in terms of the agreement the Defendant continued to manufacture the packaged drinking water and soda. The Plaintiff as per the agreement had to pick up 75,000 packages per month. To meet the demands of the Plaintiff, the Defendant started work in two shifts. The shelf life of the packaged water and sod