TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Banks that the debits raised are illegal etc. Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) filed a suit for recovery of certain sums of money and an application made therein under Chapter XIII-A of the Original Side Rules and the High Court of Calcutta rejected the same and respondents 1 and 3 Banks and E.C.G.C. were also impleaded by an amendment in the said suit, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of certain sum of money with certain other reliefs and in that suit, application for judgment upon admission was allowed. Appeal thereon being unsuccessful, this petition is filed. 2. The application filed by 1st respondent-Bank for judgment on admission covers only a part of the suit claim. The 1st respondent-Bank relied upon (i) Balance Sheet of the petitioner for year ending 31st March, 1989 with reference to Schedules 'C', 'D' and 'E'; (ii) Minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors held on 30th May, 1990 which noticed the discussion at the meeting and issues that could be deemed to have been settled as result thereof, (iii) letter dated 4th June, 1990 communicating the resolution and minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on May 30, 1990. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e executed against the consideration of permitting us to operate the sanctioned limits there-against as they stand. The debit entry of Rs. 3,60,62,579 and entries for interest thereon will have no bearing on the actual amount due as confirmed by us in our Board Resolution. d) Almost two years ago an unofficial freeze was imposed on our Inland Guarantee limits for reasons never communicated to us. Thus, you had denied fresh Guarantees for Bid Bonds etc. to tender for new works and the company's huge fleet of Construction equipments and trained personnel perforce thereby remained idle since the last one and a half year. 5. The petitioners filed an affidavit-in-op- position to contend that: 1. That the defendant No. 1 's suit is barred by limitation; 2. That the resolution dated 30.5.90 was passed subject to a condition that the inland guarantee limit would be resumed and that as the condition was not fulfilled, the resolution was not binding; 3. That the defendant No. 1 's suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC because the matter in issue in the suit was also directly and substantially in issue in the previous suits filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit. 8. The learned trial judge found that there is an unequivocal admission of the contents of the documents and what is denied is the extent of admission and the 9. The learned trial judge took the view that the prerequisites of Order XII, Rule 6 CPC had been satisfied in this case and that on a plain reading of the resolution of the Board dated 30.5.90 there could be no doubt that the petitioner had made a clear, unambiguous and unconditional acknowledgement of its liability to the Bank. The language of the resolution would show that the extent of the admission in the resolution is for Rs. 10,15,80,000/-, if not for Rs. 10,36.80 lakhs. The figure of Rs. 1015.80 lakhs is firm admission being the figure arrived at after deducting Rs. 21 lakhs claimed by the defendants by reason of fluctuation of the exchange rate and that was the amount claimed by the petitioner in the suit. This admission made in the course of the Board of Directors' resolution had not been explained by the petitioner in the affidavit-in-opposition but on the other hand had reiterated the same. The arguments raised before the trial court were considered to be co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. 13. The next contention canvassed (canvassed?) is that the resolutions or minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors, resolution passed thereon and the letter sending the said resolution to the respondent bank cannot amount to a pleading or come within the scope of the Rule as such statements are not made in the course of the pleadings or otherwise. When a statement is made to a party and such statement is brought before the Court showing admission of liability by an application filed under Order XII Rule 6 and the other side has sufficient opportunity to explain the said admission and if such explanation is not accepted by the Court, we do not think the trial court is helpless in refusing to pass a decree. We have adverted to the basis of the claim and the manner in which the trial court has dealt with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es relevant. In Nagubai Ammal (supra) which is locus classicus on the subject states that merely because a written admission made in a different context, such admission may not become relevant if the party making it has a reasonable explanation of that. But that is not the position in the present case at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant further adverted to the decision in Balraj Taneja and Anr. v. Sunil Madan and Anr.: AIR1999SC3381 in which the Court was concerned with a case of the effect of not filing a written statement and whether a decree could be passed only on that basis. That was a suit for specific performance and it was held it could not be granted without even writing a detailed judgment and adverted to various provisions of CPC and reference was made to Order XII Rule 6 by way of analogy and referred to the dictum in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum [1959]1SCR1111 , to state that Order XII Rule 6 should be read along with proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8 CPC. In that case, what was noticed was that in cases governed by Section 42 and Section 43 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, the Court is not bound to grant declaration prayed for on the mere admission of the claim ....