LexHIMANI ALLOYS LTD. versus TATA STEEL LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 60
HIMANI ALLOYS LTD.
v.
TATA STEEL LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 5077 of 2011)
JULY 05, 2011
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 12 r. 6 - Judgment
on admission - Recovery suit - Respondent filed application
C praying for decree alleging that appellant had admitted
liability for sum of Rs. 7 4. 57 lakhs as per minutes of the
meeting held between representatives of the respondent and
the appellant - High Court holding that the minutes of the said
meeting recorded an admission by the appellant in respect
o of a sum of Rs.47. 06 lakhs and made a judgment on
admission u!Or. 12 r. 6 in regard to the said amount in favour
of the respondent - Justification of - Held: Not justified - A
judgment can be given on an 'admission' contained in the
minutes of a meeting - But the admission should be
E
categorical - It should be a conscious and deliberate act of
the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it -
Or. 12 r. 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory
nor pre-emptory but discretionary - Since a judgment on
admission is a judgment without trial which permanently
F
denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on
merits, the discretion should be used only when there is a
clear 'admission' which can be acted upon - On facts, the sum
of Rs. 74.57 lakhs actually figures in minutes of a subsequent
meeting held between the parties, thus, the specific case of
G admission put forth by the respondent in its application
seeking a judgment on admission, incorrect - Respondent
did not refer to or rely upon any other admission, nor sought
judgment in regard to any other admission - High Court could
not have embarked upon an enquiry as to whether there was
some oth~ admission nor given a judgment on the basis of
H
r
60
.
HIMANI ALLOYS LTD. v. TATA STEEL LTD.
61
such other admission, not pleaded by the respondent - In any A
event, on examination it is found that the minutes of the
meeting (as relied on by the respondent) did not refer td any
admission by appellant to pay any amount to respondent
which could result in a judgment on admission u/Or. 12 r. 6 -
Thus, ori:Jers of the High Court are set aside.
B
Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of
India 2000 (7) SCC 120; Karam Kapahi vs. Lal Chand Public
Charitable Trust 2010 (4) SCC 753; Jeevan Diesels and
Electricals Ltd. vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha 2010 (6) SCC 601 -
C
relied on.
'
Case Law Reference:
Para 10
2000 (7) sec 120
2010 (4) sec 753
2010 cs> sec 601
Relied on
Relied on
Relied on
Para 10
D
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5077 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.9.2008 of the High
Court of Calcutta in CS No. 12 of 2003 and APO No. 89 of 2008
and GA No. 940 of 2008.
WITH
S.l.P. (C) CC. No. 7879-7880 of 2009.
K.V. Vishwanathan, Shyam Divan, Gitika Panwar, Kavita
Wadia, Ajay Agg·arwal, Mohit Mudgal, Nimita Kaul , Rajan
E
F
Narain for the appearing parties.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 7 S.C.R.
A
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 Rs.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
B
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. The said application was resisted by the appellant
contending that there was no such admission on 9.12.2000 or
c any other date and pointing out that what transpired on
9.12.2000 was only a tentative agreement to have the accounts
verified and not a final settlement or admission of liability.
3. A learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by
order dated 22.2.2008, granted a judgment on admission
D under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' 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 thf' Registrar of the High
Court. The intra appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed
E
by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated
22.9.2008. The said judgmentExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.