9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72,505/40 in regard to supply of steel. In the said Suit, the Respondent filed an application on 8.8.2003 praying for a decree upon admission for Rs. 74,57,074/50 alleging that the Appellant had admitted liability for such sum, as per minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2000 between representatives of Respondent and Appellant. The said application was resisted by the Appellant contending that there was No. such admission on 9.12.2000 or any other date and pointing out that what transpired on 9.12.2000 was only a tentative agreement to have the accounts verified and not a final settlement or admission of liability. 3. A learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by order dated 22.2.2008, granted a judgment on admission under Order 12, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment on admission in regard to Rs. 47,06,775/70 against the Appellant. The question is whether such judgment on admission was justified. 6. The sum of Rs. 74,57,074/50 described as the amount admitted to be due by the Appellant, has nothing to do with Appellant (Himani Alloys Ltd.). It is an amount that actually figures in the minutes of a meeting held on 23.2.2001 between the representatives of the Respondent and another company by name Himani Ferro Alloys Ltd. Thus the specific case of admission put forth by the Respondent in its application seeking a judgment on admission, was found to be incorrect. The Respondent did not refer to or rely upon any other admission, nor sought judgment in regard to any other admission. Once the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter the minutes conclude that the "final figure will be arrived at the meeting accordingly". When the minutes merely notes certain figures and states that they are tentative and both parties will verify the same and says that the final figure will be arrived at the next meeting, after discussions, we fail to understand how the same could be termed as an "admission" for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. 8. Another aspect regarding the minutes dated 9.12.2000 requires to be noticed. The Minutes do not refer to any admission by HIMANI (Appellant) to pay any amount to TISCO (Respondent). If a buyer states on 9.12.2000 that his account as on 31.3.1999 shows a balance of amount 'X' to the credit of the supplier, it can not be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
