Calcutta High Court
The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd on 22 April, 2014
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee, Arijit Banerjee
ORDER SHEET
APO 264/1999
CS 170/1998
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.
Versus
MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
Date : 22nd April, 2014.
Mr.Ranjan Ray, Advocate
Ms.Tanuta Guray, Advocate
The Court : This appeal would relate to order of refusal to the prayer for
judgment upon admission. Mr.Ray appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would
strenuously contend, the admission was unambiguous. The learned Judge
declined to accept such contention in view of the word 'approximately' used in
the admission. According to His Lordship, it must be specific.
We have gone through the letter dated May 24, 1997 appearing at pages
29-30. We find, the respondent categorically offered payment of Rs.463 lakhs in
phased manner. They have given alternative proposal. Mr.Ray would rightly say, although his claim is much more than Rs.463 lakhs, the unequivocal admission of the said amount proposing to pay in a phased manner would attract the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His argument may sound logic. However, we wish to look at it from a different angle. The letter was 2 written at a time when the suit had not been filed. It was a pre-suit admission. Order 12 Rule 6 would suggest, summary disposal of a claim could be made on the basis of the admission made by the defendant at any stage of the suit. In our considered view, this letter might be used for some other purpose. We do not wish to make any comment. However, using the same for an application under Order 12 Rule 6 would not be maintainable. The provisions would suggest, 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 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. On a combined reading of the provision we are unable to persuade ourselves to pass a judgment on the basis of such admission which was made prior to the filing of the suit.
The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
(ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.)
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
sd/