TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 31.3.1999, the amount due by Himani(Appellant) was ₹ 61,49,449/30 and if three deductions (which were yet to be checked) were made, the amount due would be ₹ 47,06,775/70. Thereafter, in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, there is a reference to both parties agreeing to provide particulars, agreeing to hold further discussions on 26.12.2000 and Respondent agreeing to check up its records to find out the correctness of certain entries. Thereafter the minutes conclude that the final figure will be arrived at the meeting accordingly . When the minutes merely notes certain figures and states that they are tentative and both parties will verify the same and says that the final figure will be arrived at the next meeting, after discussions, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs., Gitika Panwar, Kavita Wadia, Ajay Aggarwal, Mohit Mudgal, Nimita Kaul and Rajan Narain, Advs. For the Respondent : None ORDER R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Respondent ('TISCO' for short) filed a suit (C.S. No. 12/2003) in the Calcutta High Court against the Appellant for recovery of a sum of ₹ 2,02,72,505/40 in regard to supply of steel. In the said Suit, the Respondent filed an application on 8.8.2003 praying for a decree upon admission for ₹ 74,57,074/50 alleging that the Appellant had admitted liability for such sum, as per minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2000 between representatives of Respondent and Appellant. The said application was resisted by the Appellant contending that there was No. su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment on admission for that amount. The learned single Judge found that there was No. such admission in regard to ₹ 74,57,074/50 in the minutes of the meeting dated 9.12.2000. He however held that the minutes of the meeting dated 9.12.2000 recorded an admission by the Appellant in respect of a sum of ₹ 47,06,775/70 and consequently made a judgment on admission in regard to ₹ 47,06,775/70 against the Appellant. The question is whether such judgment on admission was justified. 6. The sum of ₹ 74,57,074/50 described as the amount admitted to be due by the Appellant, has nothing to do with Appellant (Himani Alloys Ltd.). It is an amount that actually figures in the minutes of a meeting held on 23.2.2001 between the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if three deductions (which were yet to be checked) were made, the amount due would be ₹ 47,06,775/70. Thereafter, in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, there is a reference to both parties agreeing to provide particulars, agreeing to hold further discussions on 26.12.2000 and Respondent agreeing to check up its records to find out the correctness of certain entries. Thereafter the minutes conclude that the final figure will be arrived at the meeting accordingly . When the minutes merely notes certain figures and states that they are tentative and both parties will verify the same and says that the final figure will be arrived at the next meeting, after discussions, we fail to understand how the same could be termed as an admission for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercised to deny the valuable right of a Defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a clear 'admission' which can be acted upon. (See also Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India 2000 (7) SCC 120, Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust 2010 (4) SCC 753 and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha 2010 (6) SCC 601. There is No. such admission in this case. 10. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the division bench of the High Court dated 22.2.2008 and 22.9.2008. We make it clear that we have not recorded any finding nor expressed any opinion in regard to the merits of the case or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
