Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.50 seconds)Karam Kapahi & Ors vs M/S Lal Chand Public Charitabl ... on 7 April, 2010
In the judgment in the case of Karam Kapahi & Ors.
vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr. (supra), this
Court has interpreted the expression “otherwise” as used in
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and has held that the scope of the
said provision of the Order XII Rule 6 is wider in
S.L.P.(C) No.31176 of 2018 36
comparison to provision of Order XII Rule 1 of CPC. It is
true that after amendment, scope of the Rule under Order XII
Rule 6 is expanded but at the same time the expression
“otherwise” inserted in Order XII Rule 6 is also to be
considered within the framework of the Rule but not beyond.
In any event, even in a given case, the admissions are
categorical and unconditional, whether any inference can be
drawn on admissions having regard to documents placed on
record, is a matter to be considered having regard to facts
of each case. There cannot be any straight jacket formula
to extend the benefit of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Section 340 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000
34. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs Sri
Shyam Divan, relying on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of
India (supra) has submitted that in view of the balance
sheets and resolutions of the company, they are to be
considered as admissions otherwise it will amount to
narrowing down the scope of the Rule itself. In the
aforesaid judgment itself, this Court has held that when a
statement of admission is brought before the Court, as long
as the party making the statement is given sufficient
opportunity to explain such admissions, judgment on
admission can be delivered. In the case on hand it is to be
noted that the relief claimed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC
by filing a written application claiming admission only
based on the statement made by the advocate in the bail
application, and there is no other pleaded admissions, in
S.L.P.(C) No.31176 of 2018 35
the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. It is a
trite principle that any amount of evidence is of no help,
in absence of pleading and foundation in the application. It
is true that when categorical and unconditional admissions
are there, judgment on admission can be ordered, without
narrowing down the Rule but at the same time the judicious
discretion conferred on the court is to be exercised within
the framework of the Rule but not beyond. Even on balance
sheets of the company and the note of one of the Directors,
it is the specific case of the appellants that the third
respondent, in connivance with the respondents-plaintiffs,
is also working against the appellants. In that view of the
matter the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs relying on
the documents relating to company is to be considered with
reference to the defence of the appellants during trial in
the suit.
S.M. Asif vs Virendra Kumar Bajaj on 12 August, 2015
In the judgment in the case of S.M. Asif vs.
Virender Kumar Bajaj (supra), this Court has held that the
power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and
cannot be claimed as a right. It is further held in the
aforesaid case that where the defendants have raised
objections, which go to root of the case, it would not be
appropriate to exercise discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of
CPC. Para 8 of the judgment read as under:-
Himani Alloys Ltd vs Tata Steel Ltd on 5 July, 2011
In the judgment in the case of Himani Alloys Limited
vs. Tata Steel Limited (supra), nature and scope of Order
XII Rule 6 has been considered by this Court. In the
aforesaid judgment this Court has held that the discretion
conferred under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to be exercised
judiciously, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is
a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy
to the defendant. Para 11 of the judgment read as under:-
Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999
In the judgment in the case of Balraj Taneja and
another vs. Sunil Madan and another (supra), while
considering the scope of Order VIII Rule 10 and Order XII
Rule 6 of CPC, this Court has held that the court is not to
act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the
defendant in the written statement nor should the court
proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written
S.L.P.(C) No.31176 of 2018 32
statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the
facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the
court.
M/S. Usha Rectifier Corpn.(I) Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 13 January, 2011
In the judgment in the case of Usha Rectifier
Corporation (India) Limited vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, New Delhi (supra) relied on by learned senior
counsel Sri Shyam Divan, this Court has held that entries
made in the balance sheets filed on behalf of the company
are to be treated as admissions and the appellant cannot
turn around and take stand, contrary to such admissions but
in this case from the beginning it is the case of the
appellants that the third respondent is in connivance with
the respondents-plaintiffs.
Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha And Ors on 23 September, 2005
In the judgment relied on by Sri P.S.
Narsimha, learned senior counsel in the case of Aniglase
Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Ors. (supra), this Court has
held that the basic principle behind Section 16(c) read with
Explanation (ii) of the Specific Relief Act, is that any
S.L.P.(C) No.31176 of 2018 39
person seeking benefit of the specific performance of
contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless
throughout entitling him to the specific relief. In the
aforesaid judgment this Court has further held that the
court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the
person seeking relief. Paras 12 and 13 of the judgment read
as under:-