TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areer. 2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings could be summarised as follows: In terms of certain Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.9.1995, the petitioner had paid a sum of ₹ 3.52 crores to the 1st respondent and an additional sum of ₹ 2.88 crores to the 3rd respondent in all aggregating to ₹ 6.40 crores. In terms of the said agreement between the parties, the respondents were not in a position to develop the immovable properties agreed to be sold under the said Memorandum of Understanding the respondents who are the defendants would refund the said amount paid by the petitioners together with interest. Since the said amount was not paid by the respondents, the present suit is filed for recovery o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 crores within 15 days failing which the revision petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. The said order passed by this Court in the Civil Revision petition is produced at Annexure 'L1. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the Apex Court in SLP (C)No. 24069/2002. The Apex Court did not grant special leave and thereby dismissed the special leave petition. At this point of time, the petitioner plaintiff filed an application I.A. No. 2 under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a judgment on the admissions, directing the respondents, 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the admitted principle sum of ₹ 9,20,69,032/-. The sum and substance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H and J are the confirmation letters issued by the respondents admitting their liability to pay a sum of ₹ 9.25 crores. The said confirmation according to him would amount to admission, which would entail a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He would also further submit that Form-8 which is filed before the Registrar of Companies would disclose that the amount secured by way of charge would amount to ₹ 952 lakhs and the beneficiary thereof is none other than the plaintiff-petitioner, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'E'. He would also stress on Form No. 13, which is a Register of Charges, which would once again disclose that it is the plaintiff-petitioner who are entitled for the charge i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judgment on admissions.- (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under Sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. A reading of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure would contemplate that whenever there is an admission made in the plead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR2000SC2740 to the effect that on the basis of admission made in the minutes of the meeting and the Resolution passed thereof, a decree could be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. Apparently, the said admission, which is made on the basis of minutes of meeting and resolution passed thereof was not resiled by the contesting parties thereof. But however, the said decision also would confirm my view to the effect that on a disputed document, which is objected to by the contesting parties and unless an opportunity is given to them to explain the said documents, a decree cannot be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposes to pass on the basis of admission. The same view is taken in the case of Janardhan Jog v. Srikrishna (supra) that the admission must be absolute and capable of being worked out by itself. It is also to be noticed that so far as the admission as contemplated under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned should independently stand without there being any interlink support and unless that is established, a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be granted. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and also the law in what circumstances a decree could be granted under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
