In The High Court at Calcutta

Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

[Commercial Division]

Original Side

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

IA No. GA-COM/1/2024

In

CS-COM/712/2024

SKIPPER LIMITED

VS

PRABHA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED

For plaintiff: Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv.

Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Manisha Das, Adv.

For defendant : Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Dilawar Khan, Adv.

Ms. Apple Mughali Jimo, Adv.

Reserved on : 17.02.2026

Judgment on : 12.03.2026

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.:

In Re: IA No. GA-COM/1/2024

Facts:

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, claiming the

following reliefs in the notice of motion :-

2

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

(a) Judgment and decree on admission for a sum of

Rs.71,68,870.00 in terms of particulars pleaded in paragraph

58 hereof;

(b) Interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 24%

(twenty four percent) per annum on the said sum of

Rs.71,68,870.00 on and from June 2024 till realization

thereof;

(c) An order be passed directing the defendant to furnish

sufficient and proper security for the said sum of

Rs.71,68,870.00, claimed by the plaintiff in the suit;

(d) In the alternative, an order be passed directing the defendant

to show cause as to why it should not furnish security for the

said sum of Rs.71,68,870.00, and if sufficient cause is not

shown, an order of attachment before judgment be passed in

respect of the defendant’s said bank account, being Account

No.08344015005486 held with Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Sigra, Varanasi Branch situated at D -58 9, A-1, Sigra,

Varanasi – 221002, or any sufficient part of the funds lying

therein so as to satisfy any decree that may be passed in the

suit;

(e) Ad interim order(s) in terms of prayers above;

(f) Such further and/or other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit.

2. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit, inter alia, claiming price payable by

the defendant to the plaintiff on account of goods sold and delivered.

The principal claim in the plaint is for a sum of Rs.40,07,102.00/-

together with interest as pleaded in paragraph 59 of the plaint. The

plaint case is that the plaintiff has supplied materials for a total sum of

Rs.1,06,39,068.00/- out of which the defendant has already paid a sum

of Rs.66,31,966.00/- and the balance is the claim in the plaint. Case

pleaded in the application is that since the defendant failed and

neglected to pay the price of the goods sold and delivered by the

plaintiff, the plaintiff earlier filed CS No.195 of 2022 praying for a

decree for a sum of Rs.49,95,155/- along with interest. In the said

earlier suit, the defendant entered appearance and filed an application

being I.A. GA/2/2022 praying for rejection of plaint. The defendant had

3

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

also filed written statement in the suit, annexure A at page 49 to the

application. By a judgment and order dated December 20, 2023, the

plaint filed in CS No.195 of 2022 was rejected. Upon the plaint being

rejected, the plaintiff availed of mediation under Section 12A of the

Commercial Court Act, 2015. The mediation failed.

3. After the mediation failed, the instant civil suit has been filed.

4. The case made out in the instant application is that the defendant has

admitted its liability to pay the balance principal price for the goods sold

and delivered by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.40,07,102.00/- as well

interest as per the invoices raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff states

that such admission has been made by the defendant, inter alia, by way

of its electronic mails dated March 09, 2021, March 20, 2021 and

September 08, 2 021 as well as its representation made by the

representative of the defendant in the meeting held by and between the

parties on August 23, 2021. The plaintiff further pleads that the

defendant has also admitted its liability to pay by issuing post-dated

cheques dated December 06, 2020 and March 16, 2021. No tenable or

valid defense was disclosed by the defendant in its written statement

filed in CS No.195 of 2022.

5. In view of the above admissions on the part of the defendant, the

plaintiff states that there existing no triable issues in respect of the

claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.71,68,870/- and no trial is required

for the same. The plaintiff, thus, claims judgment and decree on

admission for the said sum of Rs.71,68,870/- as against the defendant.

4

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

6. In the instant suit the defendant has not filed its written statement

and has forfeited its right to file written statement under the provisions

of the amended Rule 1 to Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

7. In the light of the above, the plaintiff has filed the instant application

praying for judgment and decree upon admission.

Submissions :

8. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

plaintiff referring to the relevant purchase orders and the amended

purchase orders read with the particulars set out in paragraphs 19 and

32 from the said application submits that, the materials were supplied

by the plaintiff to the defendant in two trunches, the first lot (for short

lot-I) was supplied, as detailed in paragraph 19 to the application for a

total sum of Rs.51,39,807.00/- and the second lot (for short lot-II) as

detailed in paragraph 32 to the petition, was supplied by the plaintiff for

a sum of Rs.54,99,261/-. The said two lots aggregating a total sum of

Rs.1,06,39,068/- out of the said sum, a total sum of Rs.66,31,966/-

has been paid by the defendant as admitted by the plaintiff in

paragraph 37 to the application leaving a balance principal claim for a

sum of Rs.40,07,102/- as detailed in paragraph 38 to the application.

9. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate submits that the

third lot initially was agreed upon to be supplied by and between the

parties but the third lot of materials was ultimately not supplied by the

plaintiff.

10. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

plaintiff submits that till the last payment was made on January 27,

5

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

2021 or even shortly thereafter, the defendant has never raised any

objection or demur with regard to the supply of goods by the plaintiff.

Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate refers to an email

at page 261 of the application (volume II) which is dated March 09,

2021 and submits that the defendant through this email admitted the

receipt of goods but informed that due to some issues with regard to

their bank account, since the bank account got frozen, it was not in a

position to release the payment in favour of the plaintiff. Immediately,

plaintiff by its reply email dated March 15, 2021, at page 262 to the

application, informed the defendant that plaintiff would drop the post-

dated cheques issued by the defendant for encashment. Mr. Sabyasachi

Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate then immediately refers to page

156 which is the first post-dated cheque (for short the first PDC) issued

by the defendant for a sum of Rs.37,66,486/- dated January 02, 2021

and the second post-dated cheque (for short the second PDC) at page

221 to the application for a sum of Rs.3,50,064/- dated March 16,

2021 and submits that despite these post-dated cheques having been

issued by the defendant for encashment of its liability towards the

plaintiff, the same could not be encashed because of some issues with

regard to the bank account of the defendant.

11. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the plaintiff then refers to electronic mail of the plaintiff dated

August 24, 20221 addressed to the defendant and submits that

plaintiff has informed the defendant that it had sold and supplied the

materials to the defendant as per the terms agreed by and between the

6

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

parties and in terms of the purchase orders raised by the defendant.

The materials were duly inspected by RITTS before dispatch as per

inspection clauses under the contract. The materials were accepted then

but still the payment has not been released by the defendant.

12. He then immediately refers to the email of the defendant to the plaintiff

dated September 08, 2021 at page 280 to the application and submits

that the defendant in acknowledgment of the transaction had

specifically agreed to release 10 to 12 lakhs immediat ely and the

defendant frivolously contended to hold a purported reconciliation by

and between the parties on account of the materials supplied by the

plaintiff. The contentions of the defendant for reconciliation in the said

email dated September 08, 2021 is totally baseless, frivolous and

without any materials.

13. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate then refers to,

inter alia, paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 to 22 from the written

statement filed by the defendant in CS No.195 of 2022 at page 41 to the

application and submits that on reading of those paragraphs it would be

evident that the defendant has specifically and unequivocally admitted

the transactions between the parties that the goods were supplied by

the plaintiff and was purchased by the defendant. The issuance of post-

dated cheques, as referred to above, have also been admitted by the

defendant. The specific case of the defendant is that the defendant had

accepted the goods to save itself from alleged commercial losses.

14. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate then refers to the

averments made, inter alia, in paragraphs 18, 19, 24, 27, 32, 36 and 37

7

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

from the application and submits that the averments would clearly

show that the plaintiff has made out a clear case of admission of liability

on the part of the defendant towards the plaintiff.

15. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate then places

paragraphs 3 (XX), (XXIII), (XXIV) read with paragraph 8 from the

affidavit-in-opposition filed by the defendant and submit s that the

defendant purported to have raised an objection with regard to an

alleged delay in supplying the second lot of materials which was

allegedly for around 120 days. Save and except this, the defendant has

made a bare denial of the statements of the plaintiff made in the

application without any evidence on record. Contemporaneously there

was no objection raised by the defendant with regard to the materials

supplied by the plaintiff but only at the time of releasing payment after

repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant started taking

various frivolous pleas to avoid such payment though, the record shows

that there has been a clear admission of transaction by and between the

parties that the goods were sold and supplied by the plaintiff and the

defendant has clearly admitted the price payable to the plaintiff.

16. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

plaintiff then refers to Section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872 and submits

that if in the case of a contract voidable on account of promisor’s failure

to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promi see accepts

performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the

promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the

non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time

8

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

of such acceptance, he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do

so. In the facts of the instant case, there is no contemporaneous

complain raised by the defendant that there was delayed supply of

goods by the plaintiff. After the goods having been received by the

defendant when the plaintiff started pursuing its claim on account of

price of goods sold and delivered, the defendant purported to have

raised plea of delay. This is of no consequence in the eye of law.

17. Referring to Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Mr. Sabyasachi

Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits

that whereunder a contract, the property in the goods has passed to the

buyer and the buyer wrongfully neglected or refused to pay for the

goods according to the terms of the contract, the seller may sue him for

the price of goods. In the facts of the instant case, admittedly, the enter

goods supplied by the plaintiff in two lots, as narrated above, have been

accepted and consumed by the defendant but the defendant failed and

neglected to pay the agreed price under the contract to the plaintiff,

right to sue had accrued in favour of the plaintiff for the price of goods.

The defendant repeatedly acknowledged receiving of the goods from the

plaintiff without raising any objection whatsoever contemporaneously.

18. Mr. Choudhury submits that under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act,

1930, the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he

intimates to the seller that he has accepted them or when goods have

been delivered to him and he does any act in relation to them which is

inconsistent with the ownership of the seller or when, after the lapse of

a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller

9

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

that he has rejected them. In the facts of the instant case no such

rejection was there by the defendant. The defendant only stated after

lapse of a considerable period of time after receiving the goods that the

railway authority is not agreeable to accept the goods supplied by the

plaintiff though, at the time of inspection of the goods supplied by the

plaintiff by the agency of the railway authority, namely, RITTS, the

goods had passed the qualifying test and was delivered by the plaintiff.

The defendant at no point of time has rejected the goods, on the

contrary had accepted the same.

19. Mr. Choudhury then submits that whereunder the contract of sale, the

seller is bound to send the goods to the buyer where time is not

specified, the seller is bound to send goods within a reasonable time as

provided under Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act. In the facts of the

instant case, no objection whatsoever was raised contemporaneously by

the defendant that the goods were not supplied by the plaintiff within

reasonable period of time. It is only after lapse of considerable period of

time, the defendant in its affidavit-in-opposition sought to have raised a

plea of delay against the plaintiff but no contemporaneous complain

was there.

20. Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

plaintiff referring to the provisions laid down under Rule 6 to Order XII

of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 submits that while effecting the

relevant amendments under the said provisions of Code of Civil

Procedure, the legislature propounded the object and reason stating

that where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter into a

10

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

judgment for the plaintiff and pass a decree on admitted claim. The

object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at

least to the extent of relief to which according to the admission of the

defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. Where the other party has made a

plain admission entitling the former to succeed, but 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, it becomes

the fit case for judgment upon admission. The plea dings of the

defendant filed before this Court including the written statement in the

previous suit and the documents on record would clearly show that the

defendant has admitted that goods were sold by plaintiff and was

accepted by the defendant. The defendant has also admitted its liability

and issued post-dated cheques. The defendant in acknowledgment of its

liability had made part payments, therefore, there is no defense on the

part of the defendant as against the claim of the plaintiff and

accordingly, a judgment and decree should be passed on admission

against the defendant. In support, he has relied upon a decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of: Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.

Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Others reported at (2000) 7 SCC

120.

21. In the light of the above, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate

submits that the application should be allowed and there shall be a

judgment and decree on admission against the defendant for sum, as

claimed in the plaint.

11

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

22. Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant

while opposing the application has referred to the provisions laid down

under Rule 6 to Order XII of Code of Civil Procedure and submits that

the very object and purpose of the provision is to pass a judgment on

admission made by the defendant. Therefore, the expression

“admission” should be ex facie clear and unambiguous on the face of

it.

23. Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, learned Advocate further submits that the

expression “admission” has to be tested in the touchstone of the

records of the proceeding to find whether there is any such clear and

unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant. Mere admission of

transactions by and between the parties or that admission to the effect

goods have been supplied by the plaintiff and received by the defendant

would not be enough for the Court to grant its discretionary relief within

the meaning of Rule 6 to Order XII of Code of Civil Procedure. The relief

is discretionary.

24. Referring to the said two post-dated cheques at pages 156 and 221 of

the application, Mr. Jayanta Sengupta submits that since there was a

GST issue pending between the defendant and the GST au thority, the

bank account of the defendant could not be operated by it . After

dishonour of the cheques, the amount was paid by the defendant to the

plaintiff and the plaintiff had acknowledged that payment.

25. Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant

refers to the emails and correspondences exchanged by and between the

parties, inter alia, dated March 09, 2021 at page 261, and March 20,

12

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

2021 at page 263 to the application and submits that the defendant has

not denied the transactions by and between the parties. The defendant

has already made part payment to the extent of Rs.66 lakhs to the

plaintiff. Learned Advocate for the defendant submits that it was the

consistent stand of the defendant that there was a delay in supply of

materials by the plaintiff to the ultimate consumer of the materials i.e.,

railways. The railways had raised certain dispute with regard to the

specification of the materials, which according to the railways was not

the materials they had opted for, as a result the payments were not

released in favour of the defendant by the Railways.

26. Relying upon an email of the plaintiff dated August 24, 2021 at page

279 to the application, Mr. Jayanta Sengupta submits that the plaintiff

had also contended that the defendant would release a sum of Rs.20

lakhs within August 29, 2021 and the balance may be released after the

material reconciliation in the first week of September, 2021, though, the

supply was completed in February 2021. He immediately refers to an

email of the defendant dated September 08, 2021 at page 280 to the

application and submits that some issues between the parties were

there with regard to the supply of materials and after reconciliation of

all materials supplied by plaintiff, the defendant was ready to reverse

back of balance materials and the balance payment. It was also

informed to the plaintiff that if railways would ready to consume all

materials then payment would be made to the defendant.

27. Referring to the emails which have already been referred to on behalf of

the plaintiff, the defendant submits that at no point of time the

13

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

defendant had admitted any particular quantum of sum as payable to

the plaintiff on account of the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff.

To counter the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff, referring to

the various provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, Mr. Jayanta

Sengupta, learned Advocate for the defendant submits that immediately

after the materials were found for reconciliation by the railways and

immediately after the defendant was informed by the railways as such,

the defendant duly informed the plaintiff. Therefore, unconditional

acceptance of the goods irrespective of its quality supplied by the

plaintiff was never there on the part of the defendant. The defendant

has nowhere admitted any particular quantum of money payable to the

plaintiff.

28. Referring to the provisions laid down under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, Mr.

Jayanta Sengupta submits that it is always a discretionary remedy and

unless the liability is unequivocally and unconditionally admitted for a

particular quantum of money, there is no admission on which a

judgment and decree can be passed. In the facts of the instant case, the

email dated September 08, 2021 clearly sho ws that there was no

unequivocal or unconditional admission by the defendant either with

regard to quality of materials or with regard to any price payable to the

plaintiff in respect of the materials so supplied by the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is not a fit case for judgment upon admission. In support,

reliance has been placed In the matter of: Himani Alloys Limited vs.

Tata Steel Limited reported at (2011) 15 SCC 273 .

14

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

29. In the light of the above, Mr. Jayanta Sengupta , learned Advocate

appearing for the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the application.

Decision :

30. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of

the materials on record, it appears to this Court, at the threshold, that

the first two lots of materials were supplied by the plaintiff and that

materials were ultimately supplied to railway. The total worth of the two

lots were Rs.1,06,39,068/- out of which a part payment of

Rs.66,31,966/- has been paid by the defendant leaving a balance

principal sum of Rs.40,07,102/-, as detailed in paragraph 38 to the

application. Therefore, the defendant cannot deny the supply of goods

by the plaintiff and its consumption by the defendant and/or ultimate

consumption by the railways.

31. The correspondence and emails referred to above, exchanged by and

between the parties would clearly show that goods were supplied by the

plaintiff and there was no contemporaneous complain raised by the

defendant with regard to quality of goods. The defendant in

acknowledgement of supply of the goods has also made part payment to

the extent of Rs.66,31,966/- and even, thereafter, the defendant has

not raised any complain with regard to supply made by the plaintiff.

Only the two emails dated August 24, 2021 at page 279 and September

08, 2021 at page 280 to the application are now becoming relevant,

which were exchanged by and between the parties. The email of the

plaintiff to the defendant dated August 24, 2021 shows that the plaintiff

contended and concluded, inter alia, that the defendant would release

15

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

Rs.20 lakhs within August 29, 2021 and the balance payment may be

released after site materials reconciliation/GRM etc., and timeline

decided was after first week of September 2021. The second email dated

September 08, 2021 of the defendant to the plaintiff shows that as

discussed with the plaintiff, the defendant was ready to pay Rs.10 to 12

lakhs on the next date. The defendant also requested the plaintiff to give

its view. The said email also records that there was alleged discussion

between the parties that after reconciliation of all materials supplied by

plaintiff, the defendant will be ready to reverse back of balance

materials and the balance payment of the plaintiff and if the railway is

ultimately ready to consume the materials then the defendant would be

ready to pay the balance payment to the plaintiff.

32. The provisions laid down under Rule 6 to Order XII of Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 is quoted below :-

“6. Judgment on admission – (1) Where admission 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

admission.

(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.”

33. The above provisions of CPC stipulates where an admission of fact have

been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether oral ly 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 determination

16

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such

judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission. The

second provision of the Rule is the procedure.

34. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment

at least to the extent of the relief, to which according to the admission of

the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. The rule must be construed

strictly. Where the defendant has made a plain admission enabling the

plaintiff to succeed, the plaintiff should apply and also wherefrom there

is clear admission of facts on the face of which it is impossible for the

defendant making such admission to succeed. Hence, the expression

“admission” and “clear admission on facts” are of extreme relevance.

Mere admission of the transactions by and between the parties that the

goods were sold by plaintiff and the defendant had accepted it, would

not suffice but also a clear admission of facts has to be there to the

extent of unequivocal admission of quantum of liability. If the admission

of transaction is admitted but the quantum is not unequivocally

admitted or the admission is such coupled with any qualifyi ng

statement, the same should not be construed and treated as a clear

admission of facts with regard to liability.

35. The next expression used under Rule 6 sub-Rule 1 to Order XII of CPC

is “the court may at any stage of the suit”. On a harmonious reading

of the provisions, this Court is of the considered view that Rule 6 to

Order XII of CPC is an enabling provision. It is neither mandatory nor

peremptory but directory. The said expression “the Court may …. ”

itself shows that the legislature thought it fit to reserve the discretion of

17

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

the Court to be used judiciously, as if a judgment is passed under these

provisions, the same will be a summary judgment without any trial

which permanently adjudicates the rights of the parties by passing a

decree against the defendant. Thus, unless the admission is clear,

unambiguous and unconditional both in respect of the transaction and

the liability, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised by

negating the right of the defendant to defend the claim against it.

36. In the matter of: Himani Alloys Limited (Supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had observed as under :

“11. It is true that a judgment can be given on an

“admission” contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the

admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious

and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an

intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an

enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory

but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and

circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping

in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without

trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant,

by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore unless the

admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the

discretion of the court should not be 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 & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, Karam Kapahi v.

Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Jeevan Diesels and

Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha.) There is no such

admission in this case.”

37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of: Uttam Singh Duggal &

Co. Ltd. (Supra), had observed as under :

“12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say

anything more than what the legislature itself has said when

the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and

reasons set out while amending the said rules, it is stated

that “where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to

enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on

18

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

admission claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party

to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief

to which according to the admission of the defendant, the

plaintiff 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 the other party has made a

plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should

apply and also wherever there is a clear 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.”

38. On reading of the finding of Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of:

Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. (Supra), it is a clear mandate on the

Court that admission has to be plain, clear and unambiguous of facts in

the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission

to succeed. The email dated September 08, 2021 clearly shows an

unambiguous admission on the part of the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.10 to 12 lakhs on the next date. The next part of the email shows

some proposal for reconciliation of the material. The email of the

plaintiff dated August 24, 2021 shows that the plaintiff has also

contended that balance payment beyond 20 lakhs may be released after

site material reconciliation. Except this, there was no other admission

on the part of the defendant with regard to quantum of its liability

towards the plaintiff either in the written statement filed by it in the

previous suit or in any of the inter-party correspondences exchanged by

and between the parties on record or otherwise.

39. The rest of the contentions and rival contentions of the parties are

triable and not required to be gone into by this Court at this stage and

accordingly, this Court has not expressed any opinion on those.

19

IA No.GA-COM/1/2024,

In CS-COM/712/2024

A.R.,J.

40. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the re shall be a

decree/judgment upon admission for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs against

the defendant on account of principal only and not on interest. The

decree shall be drawn up and completed by the department

expeditiously.

41. The balance amount on account of principal and the entire amount of

interest claimed in the plaint stand for trial.

42. Resultantly, the application being IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 succeeds to

the extent mentioned above, without any order as to costs.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)