2015 (8) TMI 1468 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery of money - Commission due to the plaintiff for sale of products as a distributor of the defendant - it is argued that the amount which is claimed in the suit is that the amount with respect to which the defendant had issued a total of 11 TDS certificates and once the 11 TDS certificates are found to be issued by the defendant the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff - adjustment against the amount cheated/embezzled by the plaintiff - Held that - In the present case TDS certificates would be evidentiary admissions only and not judicial admissions of evidence for the same to form a basis at this stage itself for decreeing of the suit although issues have been framed with respect to disputed questions of facts and evidence is going on - Evidence which therefore exists at an intermediate stage of a suit would be relevant to one party to prove his case but such evidence can always be questioned by leading evidence by the other side and also by cross-examining the witness of the other party. This disputed question of fact entitles the defendant to lead the evidence to show as to how the plaintiff has embezzled money and such amounts of moneys are to be adjusted against the claim of the plaintiff in the suit. The present is not a fit case in which the suit for recovery of money should be straightway decreed - to allow the application is to summarily reject the defence of the defendant without allowing the defendant to lead evidence on his defence which is a disputed question of fact requiring leading of evidence by the defendant - application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for decreeing the suit for recovery of a specific amount.
2. Dispute over the claim by the plaintiff and defense by the defendant regarding the commission and embezzlement.
3. Framing of issues related to distributorship, commission, interest, and relief.
4. Consideration of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC at an intermediate stage of the suit.

Analysis:
The plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree for the recovery of a specific amount claimed as commission for marketing certain products. The plaintiff argued that the defendant issued 11 TDS certificates, which should imply liability to pay the claimed amount. However, the defendant disputed the claim, alleging embezzlement by the plaintiff and asserting a right to adjust any amount due to the plaintiff against the alleged embezzled sum. The defendant contended that the TDS certificates did not constitute an acknowledgment of the debt owed to the plaintiff. The court framed issues related to distributorship, commission entitlement, interest, and relief, and evidence was being recorded when the application was filed.

The court highlighted the distinction between judicial admissions and evidentiary admissions, emphasizing that evidentiary admissions are not sufficient grounds for the summary disposal of a suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Referring to legal precedents, the court noted that evidentiary admissions are subject to challenge through cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence. In this case, the TDS certificates were considered evidentiary admissions, not conclusive evidence, especially when disputed questions of fact and ongoing evidence recording were involved.

The court specifically addressed the defense raised by the defendant regarding the adjustment of any amount due to the plaintiff against the alleged embezzlement. It emphasized that this disputed issue required a full examination through evidence presentation and cross-examination. Decreeing the suit at this stage would prematurely reject the defendant's defense without allowing for a proper examination of the disputed facts. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence before reaching a decision. The case was listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar to fix dates for recording additional evidence.