Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 206
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S.KULKARNI, SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI, JJ
SIROYA FM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
SUNIL KRISHNAN ANAND – Respondent
COMAPL/16271/2023
Advocates:
Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Prachi Khandge, Ms. Swati Chheda i/b Ridhima Mangaonkar for Appellant / Applicant. Mr. Gauraj Shah a/w Mr. Shahzad Ansari, Mr. Manohar Shelar, Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for Respondent in COMAPL/16271/2023. Ms. Pooja Jhaveri i/b Katariya and Associates for R. No. 4 in COMAPL/18202/2023.
Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Prachi Khandge, Ms. Swati Chheda i/b Ridhima Mangaonkar for Appellant / Applicant. Mr. Gauraj Shah a/w Mr. Shahzad Ansari, Mr. Manohar Shelar, Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh for Respondent in COMAPL/16271/2023. Ms. Pooja Jhaveri i/b Katariya and Associates for R. No. 4 in COMAPL/18202/2023.
A decree on admission can be granted when the admissions are clear, categorical, and deliberate, as established in judicial proceedings, and such admissions are binding on all parties involved.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 12 Rule 6 - Decree on admission - Appeal against the Order granting a decree on admission for Rs.4.25 Crores in favor of Plaintiffs - Defendants admitted liability through various judicial proceedings - Court found admissions unequivocal and binding on all Defendants - The decree was justified based on clear admissions and the discretion of the Court was exercised appropriately. (Paras 11-16)
(B) Admissions - Nature of admissions required for decree on admission - Admissions must be clear, categorical, and deliberate - The Court emphasized that admissions made in judicial proceedings carry significant weight and cannot be easily retracted. (Paras 23-35)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs sought a decree for Rs.22,66,86,579.52 against the Defendants, alleging cheating in a property transaction involving a duplex flat. The Defendants admitted liability of Rs.4.25 Crores in various judicial proceedings but contested the nature of these admissions. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Defendants had made unequivocal admissions regarding their liability, justifying the decree on admission. The Court also ruled that the admissions were binding on all Defendants, including the corporate entity. (Paras 11-16)
Issues: The main issues included whether the admissions were unequivocal, the jurisdiction of the Court under RERA, and the applicability of the Limitation Act. (Paras 11-16)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that admissions made in judicial proceedings are binding and that the discretion to grant a decree on admission should be exercised when such admissions are clear and categorical. The Court also ruled that the suit was not barred by limitation due to the admissions made. (Paras 11-16)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
RESERVED ON: 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 14th JUNE, 2024.
_______________________ JUDGEMENT (Per FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.):-
- The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 28th April, 2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.2393 of 2019 in Comm. Suit No.1067 of 2019, whereby, a decree on admission is granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (Original Plaintiffs) against the Appellants and Original Defendant No.3 for a sum of Rs.4.25 Crores.
- For the sake of convenience, in this Order, the parties are being referred to as they are described in the suit.
- The suit in question was filed praying for the following final reliefs:-
- “ To decree the suit and pass judgment in the sum of Rs.22,66,86,579.52 as against the Defendant along with interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.16,37,24,008/- (being sum total of principal amount of (1) Rs.4,37,24,008.00, (2) Rs.5,00,00,000.00 and (3) Rs.7,00,00,000.00) or any other rate of interest as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realization.”
- The sum of Rs.22,66,86,579.52 claimed by the Plaintiffs comprises of the following:-
- PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 2 February, 2024 Sr. No. Particulars Amount Claim No.1 Principal amount paid to the Defendants by the Plaintiff No.1 Rs.4,37,24,008/-
- Add simple interest @ 18% p.a. from 18/2/2011 till 17/2/2019 (8 years) 6,29,62,571.52 Total: Rs.10,66,86,579.52 Claim No.2 For causing mental trauma to the Plaintiff No.1 when he was threatened by the goons of Defendants Rs.5,00,00,000/-
- Claim No.3 Hardship compensation as the Plaintiff No.1 had to keep his mother in old age home waiting for duplex flat till her death Rs.7,00,00,000/-
- Total: Rs.22,66,86,579.52 In the suit, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion No.2393 of 2019, claiming the following final reliefs:-
- “a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment on admission as against the Defendants to the extent of Rs.4.25 crores;
- b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the Applicant to withdraw the amount of Rs.4.25 crores deposited by the Defendants pursuant to the order dated 8th July, 2019 passed in Notice of Motion (L) No.1031 of 2019 in the present matter, upon such terms and condition as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper;
- c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take appropriate action as against the Defendants as per Law and/or in terms of Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC for willfully violating the reliefs at (b), (d) & (e) granted by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 8th July, 2019 in Notice of Motion (L) No.1031 of 2019:
- 2 February, 2024 d. Interim and ad-interim relief in aforesaid terms be granted.”
- The case of the Plaintiffs in support of the prayers sought by them in the Notice of Motion, is as under:-
- (i) The Plaintiff No.1 was to originally buy Duplex Flat No.501 in the Defendant’s project known as Orchid situated in Juhu, Mumbai (for short “the said flat”). The Defendants had cheated Plaintiff No.1 and also various other Societies as more particularly stated in the plaint. Various Orders have been passed by this Court deprecating the conduct of the Defendants. In fact, the flat, the Defendants wanted to sell to Plaintiff No.1, was also attached by the Income Tax Department on account of non-filing of returns and non-payment of taxes by the Defendants, and, moreover, had also been sold to a third party.
- (ii) Realizing that the Defendants had cheated Plaintiff No.1, Plaintiff No.2, as a Power of Attorney holder of Plaintiff No.1, lodged a complaint with the Juhu Police Station which was registered as C.R. No. 352 of 2016 against the Defendants. The said CR is being investigated by the Economic Offence Wing of the Mumbai Police.
- (iii) Upon coming to know about the FIR filed against them, Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 approached the Sessions Court at Mumbai seeking Anticipatory Bail by filing ABA No.1291 of 2016. By an Order dated 20th July, 2016, interim protection against arrest was granted to
