Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
R & A Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director: Sandeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Spirits Ltd. – Respondent
C.S.(COMM.) No. 445 of 2021
Decided On : 07-02-2023
Order XII Rule 6 - Application for Partial Decree - CPC, 1908 - 12, 151
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a partial Decree of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum based on admissions made by the defendant regarding advances/loans. The defendant claimed the amounts were investments and not repayable.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the admissions made by the defendant and found them to be unequivocal, leading to a decision in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's defenses were deemed untenable, and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs.90,00,000/- from the defendant Company.
Issues: The main issue was whether the admissions by the defendant regarding the advances/loans were clear and unambiguous, and whether the defendant's defenses were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions such as Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 and various case laws to determine the validity of the admissions and defenses. It emphasized the need for admissions to be unequivocal and unambiguous for a judgment on admission.
Final Decision: The application for partial Decree was allowed, and the plaintiff was granted Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of recovery.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
I.A. 3018/2022 (Application U/O XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 filed by the plaintiff)
1. The present application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking a part Decree in the sum of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum pre-litigation, pendente lite and future interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that it had given advances/loans in the sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- during the period from 03rd January, 2014 to 01st August, 2018 to the defendant Company by way of bank transfer/RTGS/NEFT. The defendant Company has admitted the advance/loan transactions through various transactions between this period and that it has made part payments against the loan amounts received by the defendant Company. The defendant Company has acknowledged its liability in the sum of Rs.90,00,000/- in its Balance Sheet submitted to the Registrar of Companies. Thus, a decree in respect of admitted amount of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum is sought in view of the admissions made by the defendant Company in their written statement.
3. The defendant in its reply has set up a defence that the amounts paid by the plaintiff were in fact investments though were described/treated as loans/advances only for accounting convenience. There was no guarantee of repayment and the amounts were to be returned as a return of investment, to the plaintiff Company only if the finances of the Company so permitted. It is asserted that to the extent possible and permitted by the economic situation of the defendant and sometimes in good faith even though exceeding its economic capacity, investments were returned to the plaintiff from time to time. However, it is denied that the defendant Company is liable to pay Rs.90,00,000/- along interest @ 18% per annum. The contents of the application are denied and the application is claimed to be liable to be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff in its rejoinder to the reply of the defendant has re- asserted that in view of the unequivocal admissions made by the defendant, the admitted claim may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Submissions heard.
6. The present application for judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partial Decree in the sum of Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, in the light of unambiguous and categorical admissions made by the defendant. Before embarking on the merits of the case, it would be pertinent to first highlight under what circumstances a decree can be made under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs. Tata Steel Ltd., (2011) 7 SCR 60 had observed that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an enabling provision and the court has to exercise its judicial discretion after examination of facts and circumstances, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore, unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest. It is only when the admission is clear that it may be acted upon. Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electrical Ltd. (2010) 6 SCC 601.
8. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Vijay Myne vs. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 142 (2007) DLT 483 (DB) explained the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC as follows:
"12. ...Purpose would be served by summarizing the legal position which is that the purpose and objective in enacting the provision like Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment on admission when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get the decree, inasmuch as such a provision is enacted to render spe
The main legal point established is that for a judgment to be based on admissions, the admissions must be unequivocal and unambiguous, and the court can ignore vague and unsubstantiated defenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a judgment to be based on admissions, the admissions have to be unequivocal and unambiguous, leading to no other conclusion but to a decis....
An admission in the balance sheets for several years can be the basis for a decree unless explained by the defendant.
A court has the discretion to pass a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, but the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal. Where serious questions of law are ra....
A judgment upon admission requires clear and unequivocal acknowledgment of debt, which was not established in this case.
Judgment on admission can be granted when there is a clear, unequivocal acknowledgment of debt, allowing the court to bypass a full trial.
A party seeking judgment on admission must demonstrate clear and unequivocal admissions, and failure to establish a prima facie case precludes injunction relief.
A party seeking judgment on admission must demonstrate unequivocal admissions; failure to establish a prima facie case negates the possibility of granting an injunction.
A judgment on admission requires clear admissions by authorized parties; ambiguity in liability can't support a summary judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
