Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 490

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. and Another – Appellants
Versus
Daljit Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4265 of 2019, S.L.P. (C) No. 31176 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s): Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, AOR Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rohan Chawla,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Admission by counsel about an agreement but at the same claiming it to be fabricated and forged and denying the receipt of amount mentioned therein is not ‘admission’ for Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
Power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right.
Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit under Specific Relief Act cannot be inferred merely on the ground that they have deposited the balance amount after the impugned order is passed.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Respondent’s case based on an admission by appellant in another about existence of agreement dated 03.05.2006 – Counsel of appellant admitting that the appellant entered into an arrangement/agreement with respondents – At the same time stating that the terms of agreement were not crystallised – Appellants consistently denying having signed any such agreement or receiving Rs.3 crores in cash and claiming their signatures to be forged – Such facts requiring proving in a trial – Single Judge rightly rejecting application under rule 6 – Power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right. (Para 27, 30, 33, 34)
       (2011) 15 SCC 273; (2015) 9 SCC 287; 2019 SCC Online SC 12; (2011) 11 SCC 571 – Relied upon
       (2011) 12 SCC 18; (2006) 6 SCC 498; (2007) 5 SCC 602; (2000) 7 SCC 120; (2010) 4 SCC 753; AIR 1967 SC 341; 2007 (142) DLT 483; AIR 2005 Delhi 319; (2007) 14 SCC 63; (2007) 4 Mh.L.J. 847 – Referred
       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on admission – Suit filed on 1.11.2006 and written statement filed on 25.01.2007 – Application under Order XII Rule 6 filed on 9.2.2007 – Issues and additional issues framed and trial also commenced – Held there was no occasion in 2010 to decree the suit on claimed admissions. (Para 37)
       (c) Specific Relief Act – Section 16(c) r/w Explanation (ii) – Plaintiff has to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of obligation – Such readiness and willingness cannot be inferred merely on the ground that they have deposited the balance amount after the impugned order is passed. (Para 38)
       (2005) 7 SCC 534 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit praying for decree for specific performance of agreement to sell, concluded on 7.4.2005 and further recorded on 3.5.2005 between the respondents-plaintiffs and the appellants in respect of property bearing No. A-22, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The plaintiffs also sought a decree of permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants and others to restrain them from selling, transferring or encumbering the suit property to third party and a permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 2 to 6 from transferring or encumbering their share holdings of Rs. 10 lakh shares in the appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 company. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they have paid further amount of Rs. 3 crores on the date of written agreement of sale dated 3.5.2005 to the appellant No. 1 company. In the agreement dated 3.5.2005, the aspect of payment of part consideration is recorded
       After filing written statement in the suit, respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. 1557 of 2007 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, praying for judgment based on certain claimed admissions.
       The Single Judge dismissed the application in I.A. No. 1557 of 2007 by imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondents-plaintiffs.
       The Division Bench has set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 24.7.2017 and allowed I.A. No. 1557 of 2007.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Civil Appeal is filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Suit in CS (OS) No. 2046 of 2006, aggrieved by the judgment dated 2nd August, 2018, in FAO (OS) No. 268 of 2017, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. By the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court, by setting aside the judgment dated 24.7.2017 passed in IA No. 1557 of 2007 in CS (OS) No. 2046 of 2006, has allowed the interlocutory application and consequential prayers of the respondents-plaintiffs and decreed the suit with the following directions:-

“(i) The order dated 24th July, 2017 passed by the ld. Single Judge on I.A. No. 1557/2007 in CS (OS) No. 2046/2006 is hereby set aside and quashed.
(ii) I.A. No. 1557/2007 is hereby allowed and consequently the prayers of the plaintiffs in the suit, as prayed for, are decreed.
(iii) The Registry shall draw up a decree sheet accordingly.
(iv) The appellants shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 50.50 Crores to the defendant no. 1 within a period of three months and 15 days from today.
(v) Upon receipt of the amount, the respondents shall forthwith execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants as well as any other documents, as may be required. It shall be the responsibility of the respondent no. 2 to complete the formalities including obtaining permissions, if any, from any authority of department and ensure execution of the registered sale deed forthwith in favour of the appellants.
(vi) In case the respondents do not accept the payment of the amount from the appellants, the amount shall be deposited by the appellants in CS (OS) No. 2046/2006 by way of cheque in the name of Registrar General of this court. Upon the deposit, the said cheque shall be encashed by the Registry and the amount thereof shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt initially for a period of six months to be kept renewed till further orders of the ld. Single Judge in the suit proceedings.
(vii) In such eventuality, the appellants shall be entitled to seek appropriate remedy for execution of the judgment and decree by appropriate proceedings by the ld. Single Judge.
(viii) Given the delay caused by the respondents in the adjudication of the matter and their conduct before the court, the respondents shall pay costs to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 1 Lac for each year of the litigation w.e.f. 1st November, 2006 to July, 2018 being a total of Rs. 11,50,000/- for the period of 11½ years.
(ix) Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- each are directed to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee; Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, which shall be paid by the respondents within 15 days from today and proof of deposit shall be filed with the Registry. The copy of the receipts shall be made available to the appellants through counsel immediately upon the deposit.
(x) In case the respondents fail to deposit the costs as at S. No. (viii) & (ix) above, as directed, the appellants shall be entitled to deduct the amount of costs out of the balance sale consideration and to deposit the costs of Rs. 1 lakh with each of the DHCLSC, DHCMCC & the DIAC. Proof of deposit shall be sent to the defendants.
(xi) In view of the order we are passing regarding payment up to date costs in the suit, we are refraining from imposing further costs on the respondents in the present appeal.
(xii) The appeal is allowed in the above terms.”

3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the application in I.A. No. 1557 in the aforesaid suit, filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – plaintiffs, have filed the aforesaid application for judgment, on admissions claimed by them in the suit. The order of learned Single Judge is reversed by the Division Bench on appeal, filed by the plaintiffs, by granting reliefs as referred above.

4. The respondents-plaintiffs have filed the above said suit praying for decree for specifi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 490

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. and Another – AppellantsVersusDaljit Singh and Others – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 4265 of 2019, S.L.P. (C) No. 31176 of 2018Decided On : 24-04-2019

Cases Referred (15)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. and Another – Appellants
Versus
Daljit Singh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4265 of 2019, S.L.P. (C) No. 31176 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2019