Delhi High Court held that
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on admissions — Scope — Recovery suit — Admissions in e-mails — Refund of advance amount — Preliminary decree.
Where correspondence exchanged through e-mails clearly disclosed unequivocal admission by defendant regarding refund of specified amount after agreed deductions towards modification charges, Court was justified in passing decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to extent of admitted liability, while leaving disputed balance claims for trial. Conditional stipulation regarding time of repayment did not dilute clear admission of liability to refund admitted amount.
(Paras 51 to 56)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Admission — Nature of admission required.
For exercise of jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, admission must be clear, categorical and unambiguous. Once defendant unequivocally admits liability to refund definite amount, Court can decree suit to that extent notwithstanding subsisting disputes relating to remaining claims or allegations regarding breach of contract.
(Paras 51 to 55)
FACTS OF THE CASE
-
Plaintiff instituted suit for recovery of amounts arising out of transactions relating to supply of screen-printing and allied machinery pursuant to purchase orders issued in favour of defendant.
-
Plaintiff alleged delay and failure in supply of one of machines and consequently cancelled purchase order seeking refund of advance amount paid to defendant.
-
Defendant contended that delay occurred due to non-payment of second instalment by plaintiff and asserted that substantial expenditure had already been incurred towards manufacture and modification of machinery.
-
Plaintiff filed application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC relying upon e-mail correspondence wherein defendant agreed to refund advance amount after deduction of specified sum towards modification charges.
-
Trial Court found clear admission regarding refund of Rs.4,98,500/- and passed preliminary decree to that extent while directing trial to continue regarding remaining disputed claims.
-
Defendants challenged decree contending that correspondence did not constitute unequivocal admission and that several disputed questions required adjudication after full trial.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The High Court examined scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC relating to judgment on admissions.
The Court undertook detailed analysis of e-mail correspondence exchanged between parties after cancellation of purchase order. The Court found that defendant had consistently acknowledged receipt of advance amount and had expressly agreed to refund the amount after deduction of Rs.2,10,000/- towards modification costs required for converting specially manufactured machinery into standard form for sale to another customer.
The Court observed that e-mail dated 14.12.2015 specifically stated that advance would be refunded after deducting Rs.2,10,000/- and thereby unequivocally admitted liability to refund balance amount of Rs.4,98,500/-.
The judgment clarifies that existence of disputes regarding breach of contract, delay in delivery or entitlement to additional claims does not preclude passing of decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where part liability stands clearly admitted.
The Court further held that stipulation regarding timing of repayment, namely refund upon securing another customer or before end of financial year, merely qualified the mode or timing of payment and did not dilute substantive admission of liability itself.
Accordingly, Trial Court was justified in partly decreeing suit to extent of admitted amount while leaving remaining disputed claims to be adjudicated after evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where correspondence exchanged between parties contains clear and unequivocal admission by defendant acknowledging liability to refund a definite amount after agreed deductions, Court is empowered under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to pass decree to extent of such admitted liability notwithstanding pendency of disputes relating to remaining claims, and a stipulation regarding timing or manner of repayment does not detract from the unequivocal nature of the admission.
(Paras 51 to 56)
