A judgment on admission requires clear admissions by authorized parties; ambiguity in liability can't support a summary judgment.

1. A judgment dated 26th July, 2016 on admission and decree drawn up thereon, in respect of a Commercial Suit, being C.S. 23 of 2015, passed by a learned Single Judge of this High Court in G.A. 202 of 2016 has been challenged in all these three appeals.

2. Respondent no. 1 in each of these three appeals is the plaintiff in C.S. 23 of 2015. In that suit, respondent no.1 / plaintiff filed G.A. no. 202 of 2016 for passing of a decree on admission in his favour.

3. As per the cause title of the plaint of C.S. 23 of 2015, the defendant no. 1 is a company, defendant nos. 2 to 6 are private individuals, defendant no. 7 is a Trust, defendant no. 8 is a company and defendant no. 9 is a registered society. Among the said defendants, defendant no. 2 is the appellant in APDT 29 of 2016, defendant nos. 3 and 4 are appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively in APDT 24 of 2016 and defendant no. 5 is the appellant in APDT 38 of 2016. Respondent no.1 / plaintiff prayed for a decree for Rs.4,76,35,178/- against defendants nos.1 to 8 and other reliefs. Respondent no.1 / plaintiff, however, did not pray for any relief against defendant no. 9.

4. According to averments made in the plaint, defendant no. 2 is a director of defendant nos. 1 and 8. Defendant nos. 5 and 6 are also directors of defendant no. 1. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 are parents of defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 company was under the control of defendant nos. 2 to 6. Defendant no. 9 used to run two medical institutions. Said institutions were facing financial and other difficulties. Defendant no. 2 representing himself and defendant nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 approached the respondent no.1 / plaintiff and apprised the said respondent no.1 / plaintiff about the problems faced by the two institutions. In order to overcome such problems, a memorandum of understanding was entered into by and between defendant nos. 8 and 9 on 21st August, 2012. The defendant no. 8 agreed to assume liability for some outstanding loan of defendant no. 9 and agreed to pay Rs.40 lac in instalments by 15th October, 2012. To fulfil that commitment, defendant no. 7 / Trust was created on 6th September, 2012. In that Trust, the defendant nos. 2, 4, 6, the respondent no.1 / plaintiff and few others were appointed as trustees. Then, on representation by defendant no. 2, the respondent no.1 / plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.12.50 crores to defendant nos. 1 to 8 by 30th October, 2012 in consideration of 25% share in the management of defendant no. 9 in respect of the two institutions. Respondent no.1 / plaintiff paid Rs.2,01,00,000/- in cash on 25.08.2012 to defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 2 against receipt and respondent no.1 / plaintiff caused transfer of fund of Rs.1,31,00,000/- to the defendant no. 1 through the bankers on 28.08.2012. The respondent no.1 / plaintiff, accordingly, paid Rs.3,32,00,000/- for transferring to defendant no. 9 by defendant nos. 1 to 8 but they neglected to discharge their liability for which the defendant no. 9 terminated the agreement. Consequently, the respondent no.1 / plaintiff did not make further contribution in terms of agreement for his payment of Rs.12.50 crore and could not acquire 25% share in the management of two institutions. Fixing liability on defendant nos. 1 to 8 for breach of contract, the respondent no.1 / plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,32,00,000/- with damages as they failed and neglected to refund respondent no.1 / plaintiff's claimed amount of Rs,3,32,00,000/-. The plaint was verified on 28.