2011 (1) TMI 1560 - HC - Indian Laws

Court grants plaintiff Rs. 1,55,14,191 decree with interest. Defendant's challenge deemed admissions.

Adhunik Ispat Limited Versus triveni infrastructure development co. Limited

Adhunik Ispat Limited Versus triveni infrastructure development co. Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Judgment on admission based on ledger accounts.2. Discrepancies in the plaintiff's petition.3. Defendant's denial of admission and quality of supplies.4. Application of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.Summary:1. Judgment on Admission Based on Ledger Accounts:The plaintiff applied for judgment on admission primarily based on ledger accounts for the period of April 1, 2009, to July 24, 2009, acknowledged by the defendant on August 12, 2009. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 1,55,14,191.66, with Rs. 1,44,81,432.66 admitted by the defendant in the ledger accounts and the remaining sum based on dishonored cheques issued by the defendant.2. Discrepancies in the Plaintiff's Petition:The defendant pointed out several anomalies in the plaintiff's petition, such as discrepancies in the purchase order quantities and the total amount claimed. The petition mentioned a total billed amount of Rs. 2,11,97,441/- with payments of Rs. 56,83,250/- made by the defendant, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,55,14,191.66, which was inexplicable as neither the billed amount nor the paid amount reflected any fraction of a rupee.3. Defendant's Denial of Admission and Quality of Supplies:The defendant denied the admission of liability, claiming the supplies were sub-standard and not according to specifications. The defendant argued that the ledger accounts were maintained in the usual course of business and could not be construed as an admission of liability u/s Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The defendant also denied acknowledging the dues or certifying the balance as alleged by the plaintiff.4. Application of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC:The court examined the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, which allows for judgment based on clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous admissions. The court found that the defendant's affixation of its rubber-stamp on the ledger accounts and the issuance of cheques constituted an admission. The defendant's bald assertions of defective supplies and lack of consideration for the cheques were insufficient to discredit the admission. The court emphasized that the rule is intended to sift through unworthy defenses and expedite the judicial process.Conclusion:GA No. 1264 of 2010 succeeded, resulting in a decree in favor of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,55,14,191/- with interest at 9% per annum from August 12, 2009, until payment. CS No. 2 of 2010 was disposed of without any order as to costs, and the defendant's undertaking continued until full payment was made to the plaintiff.