<?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>2005 (9) TMI 690 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297241</link>
    <description>A judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be granted only on clear, unequivocal and complete admissions of fact made in the pleadings or otherwise; if the alleged admissions are denied and the supporting documents are disputed, summary decree is not justified. In that situation, the issues must be tested at trial, with the evidentiary examination contemplated by Section 18 of the Evidence Act. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference with the trial court&#039;s discretion absent jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or an apparent legal error. The refusal to grant judgment on admissions was therefore upheld as the admissions were not clear, absolute, or undisputed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:05:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 690 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297241</link>
      <description>A judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be granted only on clear, unequivocal and complete admissions of fact made in the pleadings or otherwise; if the alleged admissions are denied and the supporting documents are disputed, summary decree is not justified. In that situation, the issues must be tested at trial, with the evidentiary examination contemplated by Section 18 of the Evidence Act. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference with the trial court&#039;s discretion absent jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or an apparent legal error. The refusal to grant judgment on admissions was therefore upheld as the admissions were not clear, absolute, or undisputed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>