Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000
In fact, in UTTAM SINGH DUGGAL & CO. LTD. vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA [(2000)
7 SCC 120], the Supreme Court has held that where a claim is admitted, the
Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a
decree on admitted claim and 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. The
Supreme Court further went on to add that they need not unduly narrow down the
meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy
judgment and 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 face of which it is impossible for the party making
such admission to succeed. It was further held that when a statement is made
to a party and such statement is brought before the court showing admission of
liability by an application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 and the other side has
sufficient opportunity to explain the said admission and if such explanation
is not accepted by the court, the trial court is helpless in refusing to pass
a decree. In the above judgment, it was further held that admissions
generally arise when a statement is made by a party in any of the modes
provided under Sections 18 to 23 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and that admissions
are of many kinds; they may be considered as being on the record as actual if
they are either in the pleadings or in answer to interrogatories or implied
from the pleadings by non-traversal and secondly, as between parties by
agreement or notice.
Section 18 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1