Techcon Infrastructure PVT. LTD. vs. T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Limited And 6 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Techcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial suit against T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Limited and others for recovery of Rs. 30,00,00,000/-. The suit sought various reliefs including principal amount, interest, permanent and mandatory injunctions, receiver, attachment, and costs. The respondents filed a joint written statement. The petitioner then filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a decree on admission for the amount admitted by the respondents. The petitioner also filed an application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC for production of documents. The trial court allowed the application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC but rejected the application for judgment on admission. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the judgment on admission application before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the respondents/defendants made a clear, categorical, and unequivocal admission of liability in their written statement. The Court examined paragraphs 9 and 22 of the written statement, which explicitly stated that the outstanding amount payable to the petitioner was Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/-. The Court found this admission to be express, conscious, and founded upon their own computation. The reasoning of the trial court for declining relief under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was found unsustainable, as the mere existence of disputes regarding other components of the claim or the methodology of computation did not dilute the unequivocal admission. The Court reiterated the principle that Order XII Rule 6 CPC enables speedy judgment on admitted claims and that once a clear admission exists, the court is justified in exercising jurisdiction notwithstanding pending disputes on other claims. Therefore, the Court concluded that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The impugned order rejecting the application for judgment on admission was set aside, and the suit was decreed to the extent of the admitted liability of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents/defendants made a clear, categorical, and unequivocal admission of liability in their written statement, thereby entitling the petitioner/plaintiff to a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a reading of the written statement clearly shows an admission of liability to the tune of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32. They argued that once such a clear admission exists, the trial court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed the suit to the extent of the admitted amount, without waiting for the determination of other disputes. They relied on the principle that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an enabling provision to obtain speedy judgment on admitted claims. Revenue/State's arguments: None appears for the respondents, and the judgment records no arguments from their side.