The intra appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 22.9.2008.
The specific case of the respondent plaintiff in the application was that at a meeting held on 9.12.2000 for reconciling the accounts as on 31.3.1999, the appellant admitted that a sum of Rs.74,57,074/50 was outstanding to the respondent and therefore it was entitled to a judgment on admission for that amount.
The question is whether such judgment on admission was justified.
The respondent did number refer to or rely upon any other admission, number sought judgment in regard to any other admission.
The said application was resisted by the appellant companytending that there was numbersuch admission on 9.12.2000 or any other date and pointing out that what transpired on 9.12.2000 was only a tentative agreement to have the accounts verified and number a final settlement or admission of liability.
The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.
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 Rs.47,06,775/70 and companysequently made a judgment on admission in regard to Rs.47,06,775/70 against the appellant.
In the said Suit, the respondent filed an application on 8.8.2003 praying for a decree upon admission for Rs.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.
Once the claim of the respondent regarding admission was proved to be incorrect, its application for judgment on admission ought to have been rejected by the High Court.
A learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by order dated 22.2.2008, granted a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code bCodeb for short for a sum of Rs.47,06,775/ in favour of the respondent plaintiff, subject to respondent furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.48,00,000/ in favour of the Registrar of the High Court.
The respondent bTISCOb for short filed a suit C.S.No.12/2003 in the Calcutta High Court against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,02,72,505/40 in regard to supply of steel.
Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code provides that where admission of facts have been made in the pleadings or otherwise, whether oral 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.
V.Raveendran, J. 1.
The sum of Rs.74,57,074/50 described as the amount admitted to be due by the appellant, has numberhing 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 representatives of the respondent and another companypany by name Himani Ferro Alloys Ltd. Thus the specific case of admission put forth by the respondent in its application seeking a judgment on admission, was found to be incorrect.
Leave granted.
