BABRA ELECTRICALS vs QVC INTERIORS &OTHERS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 30th November, 2023
Pronounced on: 31st January, 2024

+ CS(OS) 448/2018 & CRL.M.A. 10441/2022
BABRA ELECTRICALS ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Babra, Advocate.

versus

QVC INTERIORS & ORS. …..Defendants
Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta, Ms. Nainia Kejriwal
and Mr. Yugander Goel, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
I.A.8356/2022 (under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff)
1. An application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”).
2. It is submitted in the application that the defendant has admitted the following amounts in its Written Statement:
Table A
S.No.
Description of the amounts as per admissions of the Defendants
Amount
A.
Amount as agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants
Rs.19,04,238
B.
Amount withheld by the Defendants
Rs.3,47,123
C.
Amount of Penalty
Rs.3,03,115
D.
Amount of Retention
Rs.2,50,000
E.
Amount of Retention
Rs.75,000

3. Furthermore, the amount of liquidated damages had been agreed between the parties as per the Contract for Kanpur site according to which the plaintiff is entitled to a total sum of Rs.15,42,78,006/-. It is, therefore, submitted that the partial decree in respect of the admitted amount in the sum of Rs. 15,42,78,006/- may be made and the defendant may be asked to deposit the requisite Court Fee on the said amount.
4. The application is contested by the defendant who has submitted that there is no admission made by it of any liability; rather it has filed its Counter-Claim against the plaintiff, in which the amount due to the defendant is Rs.41,01,379/- which is more than what has been claimed by the plaintiff.
5. It is denied that the defendant admitted its liability of Rs.19,04,238 in the Written Statement as is claimed by the plaintiff. It is explained that during the settlement, he had agreed to settle the disputes on payment of Rs.19,04,238/- to the plaintiff towards full and final settlement of all the claims, which was not accepted by the plaintiff. The offer was only on the premise of settling all the disputes, but there is no admission per se in respect of the liability to pay the said amount.
6. It is, therefore, submitted that the present application is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the case of Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar (2022) 10 SCC 496 in this regard.
7. The plaintiff in his Rejoinder has denied the assertions made by the defendants and reiterated that it is entitled to a judgement based on admissions to be passed based on clear and categorical admissions made by the defendant.
8. Submissions heard.
9. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.8,29,26,762/- in respect of the two Contracts entered with the defendant and in his detailed plaint. he had explained how the said amounts are due to him. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a partial decree for the amounts as provided under Table A, along with unliquidated damages, based on admissions by the defendant in its Written Statement.
10. Before delving into the merits of the case, it would be pertinent to first discuss under what circumstances a decree can be made under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
11. In the case of Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., (2011) 7 SCR 60 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an enabling provision and the court has to exercise its judicial discretion after examination of facts and circumstances, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore, unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest. It is only when the admission is clear that it may be acted upon.
12. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Vijay Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura, (2007) 142 DLT 483 (DB) explained the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and observed that as the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. It is to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment based on an admission, when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get the decree. “The admissions can be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiff. The admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.” In order to pass a judgement on admissions, the Court has to scrutinize the pleadings in detail and conclude that the admissions are unequivocal, unqualified and unambiguous. Further, the Court is also required to ignore vague, evasive and unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written statement and replies.
13. In Anil Khanna v. Geeta Khanna, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3365, this Court had observed that the preliminary objections are based on legal advice, the same are not reply on merits wherein the party is required to plead facts specifically. In the preliminary objections, parties can even take contrary pleas and same would not amount to an admission. Further, the facts stated in the preliminary objections are without prejudice and do not constitute reply on merits and the averments cannot be read in isolation. Further, in the verification it is clearly stated that the averments in the preliminary objections are believed to be true on the basis of legal information.
14. The Division Bench of this Court in Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P. Malik, (2003) 104 DLT 151 laid down the following tests:—
“9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defense set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impossible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment.”
15. In A.N. Kaul v. Neerja Kaul, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9597 it was observed by the Apex Court that even if there is no express admission in the written statement but an intelligible reading of the written statement shows propositions or pleas taken to be not material and no issue to be arising therefrom, the Court is still entitled to pass a decree forthwith.
16. In Rajeev Tandon v. Rashmi Tandon CS (OS) 501/2016 decided by this Court on 28.02.2019 it was held that while considering an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC the court should ignore vague and unsubstantiated pleas.
17. Thus, it is well established that for a judgment to be based on admissions, the admissions have to be unequivocal and unambiguous leading to no other conclusion but to a decision in favour of the plaintiff.
18. The plaintiff in his application has referred to certain paragraphs of the Written Statement alleging that there are admissions made in the same by the defendant. The paragraphs of the Written Statement are being considered below:-
Para No. (WS)
Content of the WS
Explanation by the defendant in Reply to Application
7-8
In reply to para no. 7 & 8 of the plaint, it is submitted that despite the terms having the penally clause for delayed payment, etc., the defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,04,238 subject to said conditions as referred in brief facts of the matter which may be read in reply to these paras also.
It is mentioned that defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. brief facts of the matter it 19,04,238/- subject to said condition as referred in the brief facts of the matter which may be read in reply to this para also.
17-24
The contents of para no. 17-24 are all false, frivolous, wrong and denied. These paras have no relevance because the date given in these paras are before 10.01.2011 and as referred in the brief facts of the mater, the matter was settled amicably on that day and a figure or Rs. 19,04,238/- arrived between the parties which would have been paid by the defendant if the plaintiff would have done the remaining work as per the said contract. And even if he was not doing the same, the defendant was still offering him the amount that he should take the money after giving a receipt of full and final settlement of the things. But the plaintiff was never agreeing for the same and he was always insisting that he should be paid the money in an account and he should be allowed to do the further work, which was the malafide intention of the plaintiff always to linger the matter and to involve the defendant unnecessary in the litigation. The contents of the brief facts of the matter stated above be read in reply to these paras also.
Though it is written that the matter was settled amicable on that day and figure of Rs. 19,04,238/- was arrived between the parties which would have
been paid by the defendant if the plaintiff would have agreed and
done the remaining work as per said contract.
25-28
In reply to Paras No.25-28, it is submitted that the plaintiff has unnecessary made the contents in these paras that the defendant never explained the payment on the mail or on some instances he wrote no mail. Nothing was required to be done like this because the plaintiff was supposed to do the work as per the contract and the defendant was to make the payment. But when the work was not done to the satisfaction and upto the mark, the defendant with no option and to save his skin and reputation, has to lowdown before the plaintiff and comes to a settlement on 10.01.2011 though with heavy heart, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,04,238/. And the defendant was always willing to pay the said amount to the plaintiff, but it was the plaintiff who never agreed to give any receipt of the said amount by referring that it is full and final settlement regarding two contracts i.e. one of FIITJEE Limited at Kanpur and another of Flicker Project Pvt. Ltd at Udaipur. The plaintiff always use to refuse to do any extra work and it is submitted that after 10.01.2011, no extra work was being asked by the defendant to the plaintiff to be done. Since the plaintiff left the work in between and the defendant with no alternative and to save his reputation has to settle as referred above. In this regard, the brief facts of the matter stated above be read in reply to these paras also.
Though it is mention that defendant agreed to pay sum of Rs. 19,04,238/with heavy heart and he was willing to pay the said amount but the plaintiff never agreed to give any receipt if full & Final settlement.
45
In reply to para no.45, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 19,04,238/- was not a preliminary part payment. It was a full and final settlement and it is the only issue which the plaintiff is racking by saying that this amount is a preliminary part payment. On this settlement nothing remains to be paid by the defendant or to be taken by the defendant and this amount was offered but the plaintiff was saying that he can accept this amount by writing that this is a preliminary part payment but not as a full and final settlement. And thereafter he filed this false and frivolous suit.
Same amount of Rs. 19,04,238/- is repeated.
46-56
That the contents of para no.46 to 56 are false, frivolous, wrong and denied. Again it is repetition and the contents of the above paras be read in reply to these paras also. Again, the plaintiff is making false and frivolous allegations. In this regard, it is submitted that the criminal case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant was dismissed by the concerned court and even the revision filed was also dismissed. In the police station, in the court itself, the defendant was always saying that this amount of Rs. 19,04,238/- is full and final settlement and he was prepared to give it. But now so many water has flown and the defendant has suffered so many losses, so with no option, he has to take his counter claim and set of this amount.
Same amount of Rs. 19,04,238/- is repeated.
57
That the contents of para no.57 are false absolutely false and frivolous. No cause of action ever arose and after 10.01.2011 at least cause of action, if any, it was for the amount of Rs. 19,04,238/-. It is further submitted that the suit has been filed without any cause of action which is liable to be dismissed. The suit is already barred by time.
Same amount of Rs. 19,04,238/- is repeated.

19. The defendant in his Written Statement has denied the averments made by the plaintiff. The offer of the settlement which is admitted by the defendant at the time of admission/denial, nowhere categorically unequivocally and clearly made any admission of its outstanding liabilities. As evinced from the paragraphs reproduced above, the defendant has clearly denied that Rs. 19,04,238/- was offered as part-payment. Even if in the Offer of Settlement the defendant had agreed to pay a certain amount, that that was only a conditional offer for settling all the disputes. The same cannot be considered to be an admission for payment towards the outstanding amount.
20. Moreover, the defendant has also filed his counter-claim in which it is asserted that it is the plaintiff who owes the defendant an amount of Rs.21,97,141/-, even after adjustment. There is absolutely no admission of the defendant as is claimed by the plaintiff.
21. Therefore, there is no merit in the application which is hereby dismissed.
CS(OS) 448/2018
22. List for framing of issues on 10.04.2024.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE

JANUARY 31, 2024
Va/nk

CS (OS) 448/2018 Page 9 of 9