Delhi High Court
Preeti Rana vs M/S Sunshine Trade Towers Pvt. Ltd. ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 73/2024 Date of Decision: 17.02.2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
PREETI RANA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. T. N. Saxena, Mr. Akshat
Aggarwal, Mr. Aakash Shankar and
Mr. V. K. Singh, Advs.
versus
M/S SUNSHINE TRADE TOWERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR AND ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Siddharth Nandwani, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
I.A. 2251/2024 (filed by the plaintiff for grant of ex parte ad interim
injunction)
1. There is already an interim order operating in favour of the plaintiff in
terms of the order dated 15.02.2024.
2. Let the same be made absolute.
3. Ordered accordingly.
4. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 2252/2024 (filed by the plaintiff seeking exclusion of the time of
proceedings)
5. This is an application filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act
whereby, certain time is sought to be excluded on the ground that the
Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed
Signing Date:01.03.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:06:46
KUMAR KAURAV
plaintiff was proceeding bone fidely in some other court.
6. The aforesaid issue can be adjudicated during the trial and, therefore,
there is no necessity to file a separate application under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act.
7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of reserving all rights
and contentions of the parties.
I.A. 30953/2024 (filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking direction)
8. The Court observes that the evidence and the attestation of the
documents shall take place strictly in accordance with the law.
9. The aforesaid aspect shall be ensured by the concerned Joint
Registrar. Besides this, nothing more is required to be observed in the
instant application at this stage.
10. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 30975/2024 (filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6
to pass a judgment/decree of Rs.62,00,000/-)
11. Heard.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff draws the attention of the
Court to various paragraphs of the written statements filed by defendant
No.1.
13. He submits that if the pleadings made by defendant No.1 in paragraph
Nos.13, 14 and 15 coupled with the pleadings and the documents which are
part of the insolvency proceedings are considered in the right perspective,
the same would indicate that defendant No.1 is admitting the liability to pay
a sum of ₹62,00,000/-.
14. The Court has considered the aforesaid paragraphs and has carefully
perused the documents. The instant claim is inter alia for recovery of a sum
Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed
Signing Date:01.03.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:06:46
KUMAR KAURAV
of ₹2,56,37,958/- along with pendente lite interest and up to date payment of
interest @ 18 % among the other prayers. If the pleadings which have been
pointed out by Mr. T. N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
are considered holistically, the same does not tantamount to the admission of
the claim of the plaintiff.
15. Defendant No.1 appears to have made certain averments with respect
to the dealings that have been undertaken by the parties. He submits that the
execution of MOU dated 28.01.2019 is admitted to him but so far as the
amount of ₹62,00,000/- payable to the plaintiff is concerned, it is submitted
that once the subject matter of the entire suit devolves around the question
that what amount the plaintiff is entitled from the defendants, the admission
as alleged cannot be said to be unequivocal and clear. The admission of
₹62,00,000/- alleged by the plaintiff is in altogether different context.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of ₹62,00,000/- or more is yet to
be adjudicated. Para 9 of the MOU speaks of the fact that the claim of
original amount as per IBC petition shall only be claimed by the plaintiff in
case default is committed by defendant no.1 to any other creditor and only in
case defendant no.1 is taken to NCLT and not otherwise.
16. The aforesaid submissions of defendant No. 1 are contrary to what has
been stated by the plaintiff as an admission of fact. The Court, therefore,
finds that unless there is an unequivocal admission by the defendant, the suit
cannot normally be decreed taking recourse to provisions of Order XII Rule
6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A factual assertion must be evaluated in its
entirety. Selectively extracting portions here and there to draw conclusions
during the consideration of an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the
Civil Procedure Code is not permissible.
Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed
Signing Date:01.03.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:06:46
KUMAR KAURAV
17. Reference can be made to the decision in the case of Uttam Singh
Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India1, wherein the Supreme Court
elucidated that the legislative intent underpinning Order XII Rule 6 is to
expedite the judicial process through the swift delivery of judgments
predicated on the admissions made by the defendants. The interpretative
approach to this Rule should eschew undue restrictiveness, ensuring its
invocation when unequivocal admissions by one party substantiate the
entitlement of the opposing party to succeed. Consequently, the Rule ought
to be applied in scenarios where incontrovertible admissions preclude the
admitting party from prevailing.
18. Further, in the case of Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd2, the
Supreme Court articulated that Order XII Rule 6, being an enabling
provision, bestows discretionary authority rather than imposing an
obligatory mandate. The Court must judiciously exercise this discretion,
cognizant that a judgment predicated on admission bypasses trial, thereby
irrevocably precluding the defendant from pursuing appellate remedies on
merits. Ergo, the exercise of discretion should be circumscribed to instances
where the admission is unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional.
19. In the recent adjudication of Rajesh Mitra v. Karnani Properties
Ltd.3, the Supreme Court accentuated that Order XII Rule 6 hinges on the
nature of admissions and the holistic factual matrix of each case. The
provision's raison d'etre is the expeditious resolution of suits, yet its
application should be tempered with caution. Judicial discretion should not
be exercised unless there is a definitive, unequivocal admission, as such
(2000) 7 SCC 120
(2011) 15 SCC 273
Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed
Signing Date:01.03.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:06:46
KUMAR KAURAV
judgments preclude the parties from contesting the matter on merits in
appellate proceedings.
20. The legal position with respect to the discretionary power of the Court
conferred under Order XII Rule 6 stands abundantly clear and states that the
rule aims to expedite judicial proceedings by enabling a party to obtain a
prompt judgment when the other party has made clear, unequivocal, and
unconditional admissions. However, the court must exercise judicial
discretion and only apply this rule when the admissions are explicit and
deliberate.
21. The Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case, there is
no incontrovertible admission of the recovery of the contested amount and
the same would require comprehensive scrutiny and deliberation. Therefore,
the relief prayed for cannot be granted.
22. In view of the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of reserving
all rights and contentions of the parties.
CS(OS) 73/2024
23. List this matter for framing of the issues on 29.04.2025.
24. In the meantime, let the parties to place on record their respective
proposed issues.
25. Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2025/p/dp
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2607
Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed
Signing Date:01.03.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:06:46
KUMAR KAURAV
