UTTAM SINGH DUGAL AND CO. LTD. versus UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 08-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UITAM SINGH DUGAL AND CO. LTD. 
v. 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 12 Rule 6. 
Admission-Judgment on-Defendant admitted liability in the Resolu-
tion and the minutes of meeting of its Board of Directors-Said resolution was 
communicated to the plaintiff-Defendant filed an affidavit-in-opposition in 
which the said liability was not denied-Held, when a statement of admission 
is brought before the court and the party is given sufficient opportunity to 
explain the admission but the court does not accept it, a decree, based on the 
admission, can be passed-Inference on the basis of the pleadings raised in the 
application under R.6 and the answering affidavit can be drawn-Hence, High 
Court rightly passed a decree in respect of the admitted claim. 
Admissions-Kinds of-Held, in the circumstances of the case, it is not 
necessary to consider what kinds of admission are covered by 0.I2 R.6. 
Evidence Act, I 872 : Sections I 8 to 23. 
Admissions-Kinds of-Held, are of many kinds-They may be actual as 
are either in the pleadings or in an~wer to interrogatories or implied from 
pleadings by non-traversal. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
External Aids-Statement of Objects and Reasons-Use of-Held, the 
meaning of 0.12 R.6 should not be unduly narrowed down as the object of this 
Rule is to enable a party to obtain lpeedy judgment. 
Words and Phrases : 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"Otherwise"-Meaning of-In the context of O.I2 R.6 of the Code of G 
Civil Procedure, I908. 
The petitioner-company was entrusted with the task of construction 
of students' dormitories/dining hall for a University. Respondents-Banks 
functioned as a consortium to finance the said project. Respondent No. 1 
filed a suit in the High Court for recovery of certain sum of money with 
H 
187 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
certain other reliefs from the petitioner and, in that suit, an application, 
under Order 12 Rule 6 for judgment upon admission in respect of a part 
of its claim, was also filed. 
In the said application respondent No. 1 relied on the resolution 
dated 30.5.1990 and minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of 
B 
the petitioner-company whereby the petitioner categorically admitted its 
liability in respect of a certain sum towards respondent No. 1. The said 
resolution and the minutes of the meeting were also communicated to the 
plaintiff. 
c 
D 
The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-opposition before the High Court 
in which it did not explain the admission made by it in the resolution. The 
petition also stated that the resolution and the minutes of the meeting 
were matters of record. The High Court allowed the application and 
passed a decree for the admitted claim. Hence this Special Leave Petition. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that admissions under 
Order 12 Rule 6 should have been made in the course of the pleadings; 
that the effect of the admissions was only to be considered at the time of 
the trial of the suit; that the admissions would have to be read along with 
Order 8 Rule 5(1); that the court must call upon the party relying upon 
such admission to prove its case independently and that the expression 
E 
'admission' made in the course of the pleadings or otherwise would have 
to be read together and the expression 'otherwise' would have to be 
F 
G 
H 
interpreted ejusdem generis. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending Rule 
6 Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it is that "where a claim is 
admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaint<~ 
and to 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 the relief 
to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is 
entitled." [195-F] 
1.2. This Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of Rule 
6 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 of facts in the 
U.S. DUGALv. UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
189 
face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to 
A 
succeed. [195-G] 
2. The contention that the resolutions or minutes of meeting of the 
Board of Directors, resolu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.