2000 (8) TMI 1125 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Judgment upon admission u/r Order XII, Rule 6 CPC.
2. Barred by limitation.
3. Conditional resolution.
4. Suit liable to be stayed u/s 10 CPC.
5. Misjoinder of parties.
6. Consortium agreement and estoppel.
7. Pending suits and payments.
8. Counter guarantee by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation.
9. Separate suit by defendants.

Summary:

Judgment upon admission u/r Order XII, Rule 6 CPC:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, which affirmed a decree based on the application of the respondent for judgment upon admission as provided under Order XII, Rule 6 of the CPC. The trial judge found an unequivocal admission of liability by the petitioner in the Board of Directors' resolution dated 30th May 1990 and the letter dated 4th June 1990. The Division Bench also noted that the discrepancy between the appellant's particulars and the particulars in respect of which a judgment was sought on admission was not challenged either in the affidavit-in-opposition or in the arguments, characterizing it as an accounting discrepancy.

Barred by limitation:
The petitioners contended that the suit was barred by limitation, but this argument was not upheld by the court.

Conditional resolution:
The petitioners argued that the resolution dated 30th May 1990 was conditional upon the resumption of the inland guarantee limit, which was not fulfilled, making the resolution non-binding. However, the court found no such conditions in the resolution.

Suit liable to be stayed u/s 10 CPC:
The petitioners claimed that the suit should be stayed u/s 10 CPC because the matter in issue was also directly and substantially in issue in previous suits filed by others. This contention was not accepted by the court.

Misjoinder of parties:
The petitioners argued that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties, but this argument was not upheld by the court.

Consortium agreement and estoppel:
The petitioners contended that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was part of a consortium agreement involving Indian Overseas Bank, United Bank of India, and EXIM Bank, and that a suit by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of all amounts advanced by the consortium was still pending. Therefore, they argued that the respondents were estopped from filing an independent suit. The court did not find merit in this argument.

Pending suits and payments:
The petitioners argued that payments had been made subsequent to the admission and that the loan was recalled only in 1993, just prior to the filing of the suit. They also contended that several claims included in the suit were the subject of another suit filed in the Madras High Court. The court did not find these arguments sufficient to deny the judgment upon admission.

Counter guarantee by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation:
The petitioners argued that the claim of the plaintiff was covered by a counter guarantee issued by the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, making the suit not maintainable. The court did not accept this argument.

Separate suit by defendants:
The petitioners contended that they had filed a separate suit claiming certain reliefs that would nullify the claim made by the plaintiff. The court did not find this argument sufficient to deny the judgment upon admission.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta and the trial judge's finding of an unequivocal admission of liability by the petitioner. The court emphasized the object of Order XII, Rule 6 CPC, which is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment where there is a clear admission of facts. The petitioners were ordered to pay advocates' fees quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.