Calcutta High Court
Buildstar Infra Private Limited vs Utkarsh India Limited on 16 June, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OCD-10
ORDER SHEET
AD-COM/2/2025
WITH
CS-COM/432/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Commercial Appellate Division
ORIGINAL SIDE
BUILDSTAR INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
UTKARSH INDIA LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Date : 16th June, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Rabindra Kumar Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Sourjya Das, Adv.
Ms. Poulami Bhowmick, Adv.
..for the appellant
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Souryadeep Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv.
..for the respondent
Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.
The Court: This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated
September 10, 2024, whereby the respondent's application for judgment upon
admission to the tune of Rs.25,20,606/- was allowed by a Learned Judge of
this Court along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from May 1, 2021,
till realisation of the said amount.
The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff is engaged
in, inter alia, the business of manufacture and sale of Steel Structures, Crash
Barriers, Steel ERW Pipes etc., of diverse specifications. The
appellant/defendant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of construction
equipment including crash barriers of diverse specifications.
It appears that pursuant to negotiation, an agreement/arrangement was
arrived at between the parties hereto for supply of crash barriers along with
allied accessories by the plaintiff to the defendant as per the verbal purchase
orders placed by the defendant on the plaintiff. It, further, appears that the
defendant placed several orders on the plaintiff and received supply of the
relevant products. The parties appear to have maintained a running and
continuous account. Ad hoc payments were made from time to time by the
defendant to the plaintiff, which were adjusted in the running accounts.
It appears that on April 23, 2021, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.8.50
lakh to the plaintiff. Out of the said sum, an amount of Rs.12,195/- was
adjusted against the pending dues of the plaintiff and the balance
Rs.8,37,805/- was adjusted against four invoices raised by the plaintiff on the
defendant during March and April, 2021. After such adjustment, a sum of
Rs.25,20,606/- remained due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed the outstanding amount. The defendant issued a
communication dated January 4, 2022. This communication is important as
the same forms the fulcrum of the plaintiff's prayer for judgment upon
admission. The communication reads thus:-
"We will clear the pending amount i.e., INR 2520606/-
lying in the ledger of Utkarsh India Ltd. From Buildstar
Infra Pvt. Ltd. Will be cleared maximum by 6 months. We
are not be able to clear the full amount at a glance as we
have a huge financial crisis. We will pay the first payment
in the month of Jan'22 appx. Upto 800000/- and the
balance will be paid in the specified time frame mentioned
above.
In between any requirement of the materials, we will lift
those with the payment at the time of lifting. Please co-
operate with us to revive the situation.
Thanking you"
In spite of the aforesaid communication, nothing was paid by the
defendant. The plaintiff sent reminder e-mails on June 22 and June 25, 2022.
On July 6, 2022, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant which the
latter duly received. However, no further payment was made by the defendant.
According to the plaintiff, on August 5, 2022, the defendant approached
the plaintiff with a proposal to settle the disputes amicably. According to the
plaintiff, it was decided that the defendant will pay the sum of Rs.27,50,000/-
in full and final settlement of the plaintiff's claim, in two instalments within
September 15, 2022. The defendant issued a cheque for Rs.7.50 lakh, dated
August 23, 2022, in favour of the plaintiff and apparently assured the plaintiff
that another cheque for the balance amount would be issued within September
15, 2022. The cheque for Rs.7.50 lakh, when presented for payment, was
dishonoured by reason of there being insufficient funds in the concerned bank
account of the defendant.
In the aforesaid factual matrix, the plaintiff instituted the present suit.
In the suit, the plaintiff took out an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure for judgment upon admission to the tune of
Rs.25,20,606/-
The Learned Single Judge noted the rival contentions of the parties in
great detail. The Learned Judge considered the legal precedents cited on behalf
of both the parties. His Lordship came to the conclusion that there was a clear
and unequivocal admission of liability to the tune of Rs.25,20,606/- in the
defendant's letter dated January 4, 2022. Accordingly, the Learned Judge
allowed the plaintiff's application. Hence this appeal at the instance of the
defendant.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant argued that the
letter dated January 4, 2022, cannot be considered to be an unequivocal
admission of liability by the defendant. The defendant had issued that
communication only to persuade the plaintiff not to stop supplies to the
defendant. In fact, the supplies made by the plaintiff earlier were not as per
the specifications by reason of which the defendant has suffered huge loss and
damage. Exchange of WhatsApp messages would show that the letter dated
January 4, 2022, was not meant to be an admission of the defendant's liability.
Several triable issues have been raised by the defendant and unless the order
under appeal is set aside or stayed immediately, the defendant shall suffer
irreparable loss and prejudice.
We have not called upon the respondent's counsel to make submission.
We find no apparent infirmity in the order under appeal. The
authenticity of the letter dated January 4, 2022, emanating from the
defendant, is not disputed by the defendant. The defendant attempts to offer
an explanation as to why the letter was issued, which is not acceptable to us.
As regards the defendant's contention that the plaintiff supplied defective goods
to the defendant, we do not find any contemporaneous document on record to
that effect. If indeed the plaintiff failed in its contractual obligations, vis-à-vis
the defendant, nothing stopped the defendant from recording the same by
issuing appropriate letters. The defendant should not have, in that event,
issued the admission letter dated January 4, 2022, nor should it have issued
the cheque for Rs.7.50 lakh in favour of the plaintiff.
On an overall consideration of the facts of the case and the documents
on record, we have no doubt in our mind that the communication dated
January 4, 2022 amounts to a clear and unequivocal admission of liability by
the defendant to the tune of Rs.25,20,606/-.
The provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been
promulgated by the Parliament to enable plaintiffs with genuine and
undisputed and/or admitted claims to recover their dues without going
through an unduly long process of trial of the suit. In a case where the
defendant has clearly and unconditionally admitted its liability, as in this case,
it would indeed be unfair to subject the plaintiff to a long process of trial. The
purported defence sought to be raised by the present defendant appears to be
moonshine and an attempt in desperation to try and delay payment of the
plaintiff's claim.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order
under appeal. The Learned Judge has rightly appreciated the scope of Order
XII Rule 6 of CPC and has rightly allowed the plaintiff's application.
In view of the aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)
bp
