Court grants partial judgment on admissions, decree for RA bills 32-39 with 5% commission. No costs awarded.

The court partially allowed the application for judgment on admissions. The plaintiff was granted a decree for the total amount of RA bills 32-39, less a 5% commission. The court did not award costs and directed the provision of urgent certified copies of the judgment upon fulfilling formalities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant admitted to owing the plaintiff the amount claimed.
2. The applicable rate of commission to be deducted by the defendant.
3. The evidentiary value of TDS certificates and email communications.
4. The applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for judgment on admissions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admission of Amount Owed:
The plaintiff sought a decree for Rs. 16,51,85,702/- based on admissions allegedly made by the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had deducted a 5% commission on payments, contrary to the 12.50% margin stipulated in the MoU. The defendant had made substantial payments amounting to approximately Rs. 79 crores but disputed the remaining balance claimed by the plaintiff.

2. Applicable Rate of Commission:
The dispute centered on the rate of commission to be deducted by the defendant. The MoU specified a 12.50% margin, but the plaintiff claimed the parties had subsequently agreed to a 5% rate. The plaintiff relied on various documents, including TDS certificates and email communications, to support this claim. The defendant, however, maintained that the agreed rate was 6%, as indicated in their email response.

3. Evidentiary Value of TDS Certificates and Emails:
The plaintiff argued that TDS certificates and email communications constituted admissions of liability by the defendant. The court examined the legal precedents on the evidentiary value of TDS certificates. It was noted that while TDS certificates indicate a jural relationship, they do not necessarily constitute an acknowledgment of a specific liability. The court cited decisions from various High Courts, including the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, which held that TDS certificates primarily acknowledge the deduction of tax at source and do not amount to an admission of liability.

4. Applicability of Order XII Rule 6 CPC:
Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC allows for a judgment based on admissions. The court emphasized that such admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Himani Alloys Limited vs. Tata Steel Limited, which stated that an admission should be a conscious and deliberate act, showing an intention to be bound by it. The court also considered the decision in IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited, which outlined the parameters for granting interlocutory decrees.

Judgment:
The court concluded that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, including TDS certificates and email communications, did not constitute clear, unambiguous admissions of liability by the defendant. The court noted that the complex calculations and the need to interpret the documents indicated that the admissions were not unequivocal. Consequently, the court did not grant a judgment on the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff.

However, the court acknowledged that the defendant had admitted to a 5% commission for certain RA bills (32-39) through email communications and working notes. Therefore, the court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the total amount of these RA bills, less 5% commission.

Conclusion:
The application for judgment on admissions was partly allowed. The plaintiff was granted a decree for the total amount of RA bills 32-39, less a 5% commission. The court did not award costs and directed that urgent certified copies of the judgment be provided upon compliance with requisite formalities.

---