Delhi District Court
Praveen Chugh vs Graphics Priavte Limited And Ors on 20 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. NIKHIL CHOPRA, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
(COMM) No.4205/2021
CNR No.- DLCT01-013956-2021
Praveen Chugh,
Sole Proprietor M/s Sunil Enterprises,
3951/5, Ishwar Market,
Gali Satte Wali, Nai Sarak,
Delhi-110006
....Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Graphics Private Limited,
Through its Authorized representative/Director.
Having its registered office at:-
19-A, Palace Court, 1 KYD Street,
Kolkata-700016.
Branch/Corporate Office:-
E-34, Flatted Factory Complex,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055.
....Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.10.2021
Arguments Heard : 29.07.2024
Written Submission
& judgments filed : 16.08.2024
Date of decision : 20.08.2024
ORDER
1. Order disposes off an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff, seeking judgment on admissions in the written statement and documents of the defendant.
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 222. Shorn of avoidable details, the case of the petitioner is that plaintiff, a proprietorship concern, having its business at Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006, was approached by defendants no.2 and 3, directors of defendant no.1 company for purchase of printing plates upon negotiations, purchase orders were placed and supplies were effected between the period June, 2019 to February, 2020. Various invoices were issued by the plaintiff and part payments were also made by defendants no.2 and 3, for and on behalf of the defendant no.1 company. As per the Ledger Account maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.45,00,859/- remained due from the defendants as on 31.03.2020. The last invoice was issued on 29.02.2020. The defendants had assured that the dues would be cleared within a few days and it was agreed that any delay would entail interest on account of cordial relations the defendants continued to seek extension of time, on one pretext or the other. As the defendants did not make payments, the plaintiff was constrained to get a legal notice dated 12.05.2020 served upon the defendants, calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.45,00,859/- together with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f 29.02.2020, as well as legal expenses. The defendants, through their counsel Sh. Anurag Bagaria, replied the said notice on 23.06.2020. Vide the said reply, the defendants admitted their liability, and that the defendants are willing to pay the outstanding by way of 10 Equal Monthly Installments, starting from June, 2020. The defendants, accordingly, paid four installments of Rs.4,30,000/- each, on 30.08.2020, 07.08.2020, 09.09.2020 and lastly on 13.10.2020, i.e. a total of CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 22 Rs.17,20,000/-, which were accepted without prejudice by the plaintiff, having regard to the fact that the interest @ 18% per anumn was also to be paid. Since no payment was made after 13.10.2020, another legal notice dated 21.01.2021 was got served upon defendant. Vide reply sent through Sh. Anurag Bagaria, Advocate, on 04.02.2021, the defendant claimed that since business has further deteriorated, they are willing to pay the balance in 20 installments.
3. While claiming the balance together with interest and legal costs, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of money to the tune of Rs.35,51,464/-, together with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
4. The defendants filed their written statement, raising various objections relating to lack of territorial jurisdiction; suppression of facts; invoices being relied upon by the plaintiff being false; claim being based on false Statement of Account; the claim is vexatious; the suit being without cause of action, apart from other objections. On merits, the defendants denied the averments of the plaint. The defendants have further objected on the ground that the plaintiff has not placed any acknowledgment or receipt, which is the practice of the trade and necessary for account reconciliation. Besides, the claim of the plaintiff is resisted on the ground that no document as to transport of alleged material had been placed by the plaintiff and the documents placed are inadmissible, having no validity in the eyes of law.
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 22The defendants denied the contents of legal notices served by the plaintiff as false and vexatious, and stated that the same were duly replied. It is averred that defendants have regularly requested for reconciliation of accounts.
5. Insofar as the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is concerned, the same is premised on the ground that no defence is set out in the written statement, and the same read with the replies dated 23.06.2020 and 04.02.2021, manifests unambiguous and unequivocal admissions. It is impressed that the defendants had themselves stated that they are willing to pay in monthly installments, and in fact, had made payments totaling at Rs.17,20,000/- till 13.10.2020 and that later, the defendants proposed to pay the balance in 20 installments.
6. In terms of the order dated 21.05.2024, the right to file reply to the said application was closed, ad defendants had not filed any reply despite more than sufficient opportunities.
7. Vide order dated 29.07.2024, the defendants no.2 to 4 were deleted from the array of defendants, while allowing the application of the defendants under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the written submissions filed by the defendant.
9. Main contentions of learned counsel for the plaintiff are:-
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 22(i) The defendants have clearly admitted the existence of business, and liability on account of transactions/supply of material, and have also made part payments.
(ii) The denials in the written statement are vague and baseless, incorporated only to create a false defence, and cannot be treated as a 'real defence'.
(iii) There are ample and clear admissions as to liability in the replies to the legal notices, and coupled with the fact that the defendants had made payment of Rs.17,20,000/- in installments, as proposed by itself, the defendant no.1 company cannot say that it is not liable for the dues.
(iv) There is no defence in the written statement, which itself is a strong indication as to acceptance and acknowledgment of liability.
10. Main contentions of learned counsel for the defendant are:-
(i) The case itself is cooked up and the defendants have denied any liability, as the plaintiff has not reconciled the accounts, despite being called upon to reconcile.
(ii) Application is totally misconceived as there is no admission, much less any unambiguous admission.
(iii) The plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and have to prove Purchase Orders, supplies and delivery, and no final determination can be done without such evidence.
(iv) The defendants had specifically denied invoices and ledger and there are no admissions in the replies, as claimed by the plaintiff.
(v) There had been no reconciliation of accounts, and any payments cannot be made a ground for assumption of admission of liability.
(vi) No decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can be granted in the absence of an unconditional, unambiguous, and clear admission.
(vii) Learned counsel for the defendant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 22 Suman Ali Vs. Diljeet Singh Dogra @ Deepak Dogra 2023:DHC:6703] in support of his contentions.
11. Before proceeding further, a reference to the relevant portions of plaint and written statement, seems desirable:-
Plaint Written Statement
3. The plaintiff accordingly 3. That the contents of Para 3 of the
raised various Invoices plaint as stated are wrong and
pertaining to the abovesaid denied. It is wrong and denied that
business transactions the plaintiff accordingly raised
between the parties, and various invoices pertaining to the
the defendants no.2 to 4 on abovesaid business transactions
behalf of the defendant between the parties, and the
no.1 company had been defendants No.2 to 4 on behalf of
making part payments the defendant No.l had been
against the said Invoices making part payments against the
from time to time. The said invoices from time to time. It
total amount payable by is further wrong and denied that
the defendants, as per the total amount payable by the
Ledger Statement made by defendants, as per ledger statement
the plaintiff, in lieu of the maintained by the plaintiff, in lieu
purchase of the said of the purchase of the said printing
Printing Plates, was plates, was Rs. 45,00,859/- as on
Rs.45,00,859/- as on 31.03.2020, the last purchase being
31.03.2020, the last of 29.02.2020 against invoice. It is
purchase being of submitted that invoices do not
29.02.2020 against contain the acknowledgment of the
Invoices defendants. It is pertinent to
mention here that as per the general
practice the seller always used to
take the acknowledgment of the
purchaser on the duplicate bills in
token of its receipt and for accounts
reconciliation No transport bilty or
other documents have been placed
on record by the plaintiff to prove
that plaintiff has supplied the
alleged material. It is further
submitted that plaintiff has filed
only the photocopies documents
which are inadmissible and has no
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 22
legal validity in the
eyes of law
8. That it is respectfully 6. That the contents of Para 8 to 11
submitted that as a last of the plaint are matter of record.
resort, the Plaintiff served The legal notices were duly replied
a Legal Notice dated and the same were duly replied.
12.05.2020 upon the The contents of legal notices are
Defendants through denied. However, it is submitted
registered A.D. and Speed that interest claimed is highly
Post calling upon the vexatious, arbitrary, unilaterally,
defendants to forthwith pay false and frivolous, against public
to the plaintiff the policy, against cannons of natural
outstanding sum of justice and against business
Rs.45,00,859/-. By virtue practice. It is submitted that
of the said Legal notice, defendants have regularly requested
the plaintiff called upon the the plaintiff to come forward for
defendants to pay the said reconciliation of accounts,
amount of Rs.45,00,859/- However, the plaintiff never came
alongwith interest @ 18% forward to reconcile the accounts.
per annum w.e.f No undertaking and promise were
29.02.2020 till the date of ever violated.
payment. The plaintiff
further called upon the
defendants, through the
said legal notice, to pay a
sum of Rs.33,000/-
towards the cost of the said
notice.
9. That the Defendants,
through their Advocate,
namely Shri Anurag
Bagaria, replied to the
abovementioned Legal
Notice vide Reply dated
23.06.2020, wherein while
admitting the liability of
the Plaintiff, it was stated
by the Defendants that
owing to the COVID. 19
pandemic, the Defendants'
business had been
impacted. It was further
stated in the said Reply
that the Defendants are
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 22
willing to pay the
outstanding amount of the
Plaintiff by way of 10
equal monthly
installments starting June,
2020.
10. That before the
Plaintiff could respond to
the aforesaid proposal of
the Defendants, the
Defendants, pursuant to
their aforesaid reply, paid
an amount of Rs.
4,30,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakh Thirty Thousand
only) on 30.06.2020 being
the first purported
installment, followed by
the second installment of
Rs. 4,30,000/- paid on
07.08.2020. The next
(third) payment of Rs.
4,30,000/- was made on
09.09.2020 and thereafter,
another payment of Rs.
4,30,000/- was made on
13.10.2020, which was
however the amount last
received by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the total amount
paid by the Defendants as
on 13.10.2020 worked out
to Rs. 17,20,000/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lacs Twenty
Thousand only). However,
it may be clarified that as
per the computation of
accounts maintained by the
Plaintiff, the total
outstanding liability of the
Defendants was Rs.
45,00,589/- alongwith
nterest @ 18% per annum
w.e.f. 29.02.2020, as
categorically stated by the
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 22
Plaintiff in his Legal
Notice dated 12.05.2020.
Thus, according to the said
computation, the
installments should have
been to the tune of more
than Rs. 4,50,000/-
(Rupees Four lakh Fifty
Thousand only) each.
However, the Plaintiff
accepted the said amounts
without prejudice to his
rights to claim the total
amount as aforesaid.
12. The replies dated 23.06.2020 and 04.02.2021, in response to plaintiff's legal notice dated 12.05.2020 and 21.01.2021 are found to be stating as under:-
Reply to Legal Notice dated 12.05.2020-
"1.With reference to the statements made in paragraph nos. 1 and 5 if tho subject letter my client states that the goods supplied by your client was supplied with a credit period of 120 days from the date of supply which were ending after 30th March 2020. As you are aware that the outbreak of Novel Corona Virus (Covid-19) has been labelled as a Global Pandemic and lock-down measures have been taken by majority of the countries including India. This has severely impacted the business, industries globally with losses estimated at billions and billions of US Dollars. None have been an exception to the impact of this global effect of slowdown and downturn. Covid-19 situation has also been declared as a calamity and Force Majeure by the Government of India. In the situation as stated above which was beyond the control of my client the payments have become overdue. Although the situation is stringent, my client is attempting to make the payment of the goods supplied by your client, For the present, the total amount would bc paid in 10 equal month CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 22 installments starting from current month.
4. The quantum of amount claimed in the subject letter and quantum of payment by way of installments is however subject to reconciliation of accounts. All other allegations contained in the subject letter are denied and disputed.
--------"
Reply to legal notice dated 21.01.2021:-
"3. My client has made full endeavour to make payments in terms of my letter dated 23.06.2020 and in fact have paid substantial amounts to your client, however there was neither any confirmation of your client to the proposal of my client offered by the said letter dated 23.06.2020 nor have your client taken any steps for reconciliation of accounts.
4. In the present market conditions my client is ready and willing to pay the balance outstanding in 20 installments, however subject to reconciliation of accounts.
5. Both the letter dated 23.06.2020 and the present letter have been issued to you without admitting any quantum of amount due and payable to your client which shall be arrived at only after reconciliation of accounts. My client disputes the claim of interest made by your client.
6. Save and except what has been specifically admitted herein all other allegations contained in your letter dated 21.01.2021 is denied and disputed."
13. Time now to deal with the contentions. The plaintiff side seeks a judgment on the basis of admissions in the written statement as well as replies to the legal notice, the relevant portion whereof have been reproduced hereinabove. It is the submissions of the plaintiff side that there are clear admissions as to liability, which can be considered for passing a decree under CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 22 Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendant side, however, has impressed that for the purposes of an admission to be made a basis of judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the same needs to be unequivocally clear and unambiguous to the extent that it does not admit of any other interpretation but a conclusive expression and further that the replies to the legal notices cannot be construed to mean an unequivocal and unambiguous admission for the purposes of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
14. The questions that arises in succession are as to whether the defence is vague enough to constitute a deemed admission of liability, and as to whether the replies can be treated as admissions of any liability, and whether such admissions qualify for the purpose of a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
15. The plaintiff side has contended that the vague denials/absence of specific denials in the written statement are sufficient to infer an admission inasmuch as, there is no defence set out nor any justification for withholding the amount payable to the plaintiff, is made out in the written statement. These contentions involve the question of criticality of pleadings, especially, in the context of Commercial Courts Act. Before proceeding further, referring to the bare provisions governing the pleadings, as useful:-
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 22Order VIII [WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER- CLAIM]
1. Written Statement- ............
COMMENTS The limitation for filing Written Statement provided under O.8, R.1 does not apply to suits filed on original side of the chartered High Courts; ......
1. ........
2. New facts must be specially pleaded.--The defendant must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or voidable in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, as, for instance, fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, or facts showing illegality.
3. Denial to be specific.--It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.
*[3A. Denial by the defendant in suits before the Commercial Division of the High Court or the Commercial Court.--
(1) Denial shall be in the manner provided in sub-rules (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this Rule.
(2) The defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits.
(3) Where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version. (4) If the defendant disputes the jurisdiction of the Court he must state the reasons for doing so, and if he is able, CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 22 give his own statement as to which Court ought to have jurisdiction.
(5) If the defendant disputes the plaintiff's valuation of the suit, he must state his reasons for doing so, and if he is able, give his own statement of the value of the suit.]
4. Evasive-denial.--Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.
5. Specific denial.--1 [(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission: *[Provided further that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied in the manner provided under Rule 3A of this Order, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability.] 2 [(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.
(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub- rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.
(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.]
16. The above provisions, unmistakably, indicate that a CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 22 defendant is required to set out his defence with necessary clarity as well as details. True, that a particular standard cannot be fixed for such clarity or sufficiency of details in the Written Statement, but the broader principles that can be culled out from the above provisions are that it should meet all material assertions of the plaint, and should be informative and strong enough to nudge the Court to setting the matter for trial. Besides, the law precepts that the pleadings on the part of defendant should not be vague or evasive.
17. In the context of a Commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, these principles become more stricter and pronounced, in as much as the law relating to Commercial Courts Act mandates stricter norms and compliance as to timelines, as also emphasize upon truthfulness of contents of pleadings. It also imposes stricter norms for admission/ denial of documents and paves a clear way to judgment in case the court is satisfied as to non existence of 'real prospects' as to succeeding in or defending the claim without any trial. One can ill afford not to put its entire case or to omit filing of documents, having regard to the scheme of the Act, the amended provisions of CPC, and the Judicial Pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts.
18. On comparison of the parawise reply to the relevant portions of the plaint, as reproduced hereinabove, it becomes clear that the denials are vague and evasive. It is further borne CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 22 out from the meaningful construction of the written statement that no real defence is made out. The vague and evasive denials may lead to inference as to the absence of a triable defence. Such absence may also concretize the presumption as to admission of the liability. However, the same does not yet qualify as an unconditional, unambiguous or unequivocal admission. It is at this juncture that the contents of the replies to the legal notices becomes even more relevant. What could be culled out from the replies dated 23.06.2020 and 04.02.2021 of legal notices dated 12.05.2020 and 21.01.2021 is the fact that liability per se has not been disputed, however, it is the reconciliation of account, which appears to be the concern of the defendant. This, according to the learned counsel for the defendant, is sufficient to conclude absence of any admission or unconditional admission.
19. At this juncture, a reference to case law relating to 'admissions' for the purposes of Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, would be useful.
20. In Rajeev Tandon & Anr vs Smt Rashmi Tandon CS (OS) 506/2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
"22. It is settled law that while considering an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC the court can ignore vague and unsubstantiated pleas. Order 12 Rule 6 CPC reads as follows:-
"6. 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 an party or of its own motion and without waiting for the CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 22 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."
23. .......
24. Similarly, reference may also be had to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P. Malik, 104 (2003) DLT 151 wherein this court had laid down the following tests:-
"9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defense set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impossible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment."
25. .......
26. Clearly, vague, unsubstantiated and evasive pleas have been held to be sufficient ground to hold that there are admissions in the pleadings and a decree is liable to be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. As noted above, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are vague, inconsistent and do not in any manner whatsoever show that any worthwhile defence is raised or any right exists in favour of the defendant to enable her to continue to occupy the suit property."
21. In M/s Ashoka Estate Pvt. & Ors Vs. M/s Dewan Chand Builders Pvt Ltd. & Ors.[IA No.13284/2006 in CS (OS) CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 22 1702/2001], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
"26. The plaintiffs if otherwise found entitled to a decree on admissions, cannot be deprived thereof by astute drafting of the written statement and/or by taking pleas therein which have no legs to stand upon. This court is to read the pleadings of the parties meaningfully. Issues are to be framed on material and not all propositions of law and fact. A plea, which on the face of it is found by the court to be untenable, does not require the framing of any issue. The pleas of the defendants in the present case are found by me to be such, without calling for any trial whatsoever. If the said pleas of the defendants on the basis whereof the admitted liability of the defendants is sought to be defeated, are found to be untenable, naturally the impediment to the passing off a decree on the basis of admissions disappear. The apex court in T. Arvindam Vs. T.V. Satyapal AIR 1977 SC 2421 has held that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading, claim is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial court should ensure that bogus litigation is shot down at the earliest stage. Again, in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Another (2004) 9 SCC 512 it was held that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of suit; the court should interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the courts resources being used up in cases which will serve no useful purpose. It was further held that a litigation which in the opinion of the court is doomed to fail should not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass. The said propositions equally apply to written statements/defence to the claim also."
22. In Sh. Vimal Khanna & Anr Vs. Sh. Kishan Chand Khanna [RF(OS) No.79/2009 & CM No.14129/2009] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
"Even on constructive admissions the Court can proceed to pass a decree in plaintiff's favour.,"CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 22
23. In Charanjit Lal Mehra vs. Komal Saroj Mahajan 2005 (11) SCC 279, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:-
"In fact, Order XII Rule 6 , C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite the dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon."
24. Order XII Rule 6 CPC admits of a judgment on an admission that can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court has the power to tear into the pleadings when it appears to be mere pretence of defence, the Court can ignore the falsehood, and look for admissions that may lie thickly veiled in eloquent denials.
25. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon Suman Ali Vs. Diljeet Singh Dogra Alias Deepak Dogra & Ors [2023:DHC:6703] contending that the rule is discretionary, requires exercise of caution and the admission has to be unambiguous. The Court, however, finds that the reliance over the said judgment is misplaced considering the fact that the application in the said case was premised on a statement in the reply to the legal notice to the effect that the contents of a particular para of the notice were referred to as a "matter of record" requiring no reply. The facts involved in the present case are much clearer insofar as the question of liability is concerned. It cannot be ignored that the defendant had itself proposed to pay CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 22 in installments and in fact, had proceeded to make payments of four installments of Rs.4,30,000/- each till 13.10.2020.
26. Coming now to the last limb of argument i.e. there is no unconditional admission as not only in the replies, but also in the written statement, the defendant had categorically insisted for reconciliation of accounts. The Court finds that in the written statement, the only ground defendant had raised is qua the reconciliation of the accounts.
27. The Court, however, cannot subscribe to the said contention for a multitude of reasons. In this respect, what appears to be more riveting are the facts that the defendant itself offered to pay in installments and accordingly, paid 4 installments of Rs.4,30,000/- each; even while the defendant ceased to make the payments beyond 13.10.2020, there had been no communication from the defendant side that it is on account of non-reconciliation of the accounts that the defendant is not proceeding with the payment of installments as originally proposed by the defendant itself; and the defendant had not even filed its own Statement of Account, or any communication to the effect that the plaintiff was even requested to reconcile the account. As observed earlier, the defendant was under a greater obligation to ensure filing of all the documents within its power and possession, having regard to the fact that the proceedings are under the Commercial Courts Act. The non filing of the documents, especially, the Statement of Account, entails an CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 22 inference, adverse to the defendant's stand.
28. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the defendant did not participate in the Pre-Institution Meditiation, which could also have been an opportunity for reconciliation of the account, if at all, it was necessitated. The falsehood of this defence is also apparent from the fact that the defendant had never stated any lesser amount to be due in the replies dated 23.06.2020 and 04.02.2021 or otherwise challenged the figure of amount communicated to them as due. The defendant did not come forward for Pre-Institution Mediation, which could also have been an opportunity for reconciliation of the accounts between the parties, if at all the same was pre condition as per their understanding. The written statement as well does not suggest any other amount to be due, or as per the accounts of the defendant company. The above combination of facts clearly indicate that defence as to reconciliation of account is merely an optical illusion and not a meaningful defence. The written statement, in its depth or spread is found to be deficient insofar as the trial worthiness of the stand of the defendant is concerned.
29. The Court is also conscious of the fact that an admission may not be explicitly set out in the pleadings, and may be thickly veiled in strategic narrations, or passively placed in the written statement. The Court, however, has the power to infer such admissions from the pleadings or other admitted documents. In this respect, one may benefically resort to the observations made CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 22 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of M/s Ashoka Estate Pvt. & Ors Vs. M/s Dewan Chand Builders Pvt Ltd. & Ors;' Charanjit Lal Mehra vs. Komal Saroj Mahajan h.; Vimal Khanna & Anr Vs. Sh. Kishan Chand Khanna as mentioned above.
30. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the admission has to be unconditional, unequivocal and unambiguous for the purposes of a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court finds that the contents in response to the legal notices are predictably conclusive as to the liability. Coupled with the lack of any trial worthiness of the defence raised i.e. "reconciliation of accounts," the Court finds that plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
31. That said, the question that arises in succession is the quantum of liability. The plaintiff side has pressed for interest as well as legal expenses, contending that the rate of interest has been agreed to be 18% per annum. The Court cannot subscribe to the said contention in the absence of any credible document. The Statement of Account placed by the plaintiff records a sum of Rs.27,80,859/- to be due as on 13.10.2020. The same is taken as the extent of liability.
32. In the ultimate analysis, a money decree to the tune of 27,80,859/- together with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 of 22 p.a. from 13.10.2020, till its actual realization, is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant-company.
The defendant-company is directed to make the payment of decreetal amount with three months from today.
33. Decreed with costs.
34. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
35. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Dictated and Announced Digitally signed
by NIKHIL
today i.e. 20.08.2024 in NIKHIL CHOPRA
CHOPRA Date:
the open Court. 2024.08.21
09:55:14 +0530
(NIKHIL CHOPRA)
District Judge (Commercial Court 06)
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts
CS (Comm) 4205/2021 Praveen Chugh Vs. M/s Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 of 22