<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (11) TMI 1281 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284838</link>
    <description>A clear and unequivocal admission made in another proceeding can justify judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, even if the defendant later denies the same facts in the written statement. The rule is directed at avoiding trial where material facts are admitted, consistent with the principle that admitted facts need not be proved. Where the admission directly negates the defence and supports the plaintiffs&#039; case, the court may grant substantive relief without formal proof. On that basis, the plaintiffs were held entitled to declaration that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the flat and to recovery of possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:09:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1281 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284838</link>
      <description>A clear and unequivocal admission made in another proceeding can justify judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, even if the defendant later denies the same facts in the written statement. The rule is directed at avoiding trial where material facts are admitted, consistent with the principle that admitted facts need not be proved. Where the admission directly negates the defence and supports the plaintiffs&#039; case, the court may grant substantive relief without formal proof. On that basis, the plaintiffs were held entitled to declaration that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the flat and to recovery of possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>