Decree on admission may rest on clear security-deposit admissions, with insolvency resolution and acknowledgment affecting retention and limitation.

Clear and unequivocal admissions that a sum is a refundable security deposit can support a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6, including where later pleadings and affidavits reinforce the same position. The text also notes that a corporate insolvency resolution process and approved resolution plan may extinguish the asserted basis for retaining the deposit under the clean slate principle, and that acknowledgments in emails can extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On that analysis, objections based on conditionality, limitation, forfeiture, and related arbitration contentions were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of the Defendant's admissions and the effect of the corporate insolvency resolution process and approved resolution plan on the Defendant's asserted defence and limitation.

Analysis: The Defendant's pleadings and affidavits contained clear admissions that the amount in question was a security deposit and that it was to be returned to the Plaintiff once the dues of the relevant group entities were paid. The Court treated these as judicial admissions capable of founding relief under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including admissions dehors the original pleading record where the later events and the written statement reinforced the same position. It further held that the corporate insolvency resolution process, the approval of the resolution plan, and the payments made under it discharged the claims of the group entities whose dues were said to justify withholding the deposit, and that the clean slate principle extinguished any undecided claims not forming part of the plan. The Court also held that the Defendant's emails amounted to acknowledgment of liability for limitation purposes under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so the suit was within time.

Conclusion: The Plaintiff was held entitled to a decree on admission, and the Defendant's objections based on conditionality, limitation, forfeiture, and the separate arbitration-related contentions were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The suit was decreed for the amount claimed with interest and costs, and the application for judgment on admission was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear and unequivocal admission that a sum is held as a refundable security deposit, read with later events that legally extinguish the only asserted basis for retention, can justify a decree on admission; approved insolvency resolution plans bind stakeholders and extinguish claims outside the plan.

---