2011 (7) TMI 1344 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Success: Judgment on Admission Overturned Due to Insufficiently Clear Admission, Case Remanded for Speedy Proceedings.

Himani Alloys Ltd. Versus Tata Steel Ltd.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the Calcutta HC's decision granting judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6. The SC found the alleged admission ... Admission' in the minutes of the meeting - Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code provides admission of facts - whether there was in fact any admission, on the basis of which a judgment on admission could have been passed - HELD THAT:- The minutes of the meeting dated 9.12.2000 No. doubt starts by noting that the 'As per Himani's records: credit TISCO ₹ 47,06,789.00' as on 31.3.1999. It also records that as per TISCO's records, as on 31.3.1999, the amount due by Himani(Appellant) was ₹ 61,49,449/30 and if three deductions (which were yet to be checked) were made, the amount due would be ₹ 47,06,775/70. Thereafter, in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, there is a reference to both parties agreeing to provide particulars, agreeing to hold further discussions on 26.12.2000 and Respondent agreeing to check up its records to find out the correctness of certain entries. Thereafter the minutes conclude that the 'final figure will be arrived at the meeting accordingly'. When the minutes merely notes certain figures and states that they are tentative and both parties will verify the same and says that the final figure will be arrived at the next meeting, after discussions, we fail to understand how the same could be termed as an 'admission' for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. Another aspect regarding the minutes dated 9.12.2000 requires to be noticed. The Minutes do not refer to any admission by HIMANI (Appellant) to pay any amount to TISCO (Respondent). If a buyer states on 9.12.2000 that his account as on 31.3.1999 shows a balance of amount 'X' to the credit of the supplier, it can not be treated as an admission that the said amount 'X' was due to the supplier on 9.12.2000. In a continuing account, it may be possible that between 31.3.1999 and 9.12.2000, there may be debits to the account, or 'reveral of credits' or 'settlement of the account'. We therefore hold that there was No. admission on 9.12.2000 which could result in a judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. Thus, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the division bench of the High Court dated 22.2.2008 and 22.9.2008. We make it clear that we have not recorded any finding nor expressed any opinion in regard to the merits of the case or in regard to any part of the suit claim. It is possible that on evidence being led, the Respondent is able to establish that ₹ 47,06,775/70 was in fact due as on 31.3.1999 and that it continues to be due. We request the High Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Issues:- Interpretation of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding judgment on admission based on facts admitted in pleadings or otherwise.- Determining the validity of a judgment on admission granted by a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court under Order 12 Rule 6.- Examination of the minutes of a meeting held between the parties to establish the existence of a clear and unambiguous admission justifying a judgment on admission.Analysis:1. The Respondent filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court seeking recovery from the Appellant based on an alleged admission of liability during a meeting. The Respondent claimed a specific sum, which the Appellant disputed, leading to a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 for a reduced amount by a learned single Judge, upheld by a Division Bench.2. Order 12 Rule 6 allows courts to grant judgment based on admissions of facts in pleadings or otherwise. The Respondent alleged an admission by the Appellant during a meeting, leading to the judgment on admission. However, the minutes of the meeting did not conclusively support the claimed admission, raising questions about the validity of the judgment.3. The minutes of the meeting did not clearly establish an admission by the Appellant regarding the specific amount claimed by the Respondent. The absence of a categorical, deliberate admission, as required for a judgment on admission, raised doubts about the correctness of the lower court's decision.4. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a clear and unambiguous admission to justify a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the discretionary nature of such judgments and the importance of protecting the Defendant's right to contest claims unless there is a definitive admission.5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's orders and emphasizing that no findings on the merits of the case were made. The Court directed the High Court to expedite the disposal of the suit, leaving room for the Respondent to establish the validity of the claimed amount through evidence.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the strict requirements for granting a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6, highlighting the need for clear and unambiguous admissions to justify such decisions and protect the rights of the parties involved.