The matter was remitted to the Commercial Court for a fresh decision on the appellant’s application seeking judgment on admissions.

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court amounted to a judgment as it adjudicated the rights of the parties. The court noted that Order XII Rule 6 of CPC permits passing a judgment based on clear admissions without recording evidence.

Major Acts:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XII Rule 6 – Judgment on Admissions

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1-A) – Appeal against Judgment or Order

Subjects:

Jurisdiction – Judgment on Admissions – Commercial Court – Rejection of Notice of Motion – Speaking Order – Quashing of Order – Remittance

Nature of the Litigation: The appellant filed an appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the Commercial Court’s order dated 6th December 2023, which rejected the Notice of Motion for Judgment and Decree under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

Relief Sought: The appellant sought quashing of the Commercial Court’s order and a decree based on admissions made by the respondent in the written statement and counterclaim.

Reason for Filing: The Commercial Court rejected the Notice of Motion without considering the admissions made by the respondent and insisted on recording evidence, which the appellant contended was not required under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

Previous Decision: The Commercial Court rejected the Notice of Motion on the ground that evidence needed to be recorded before deciding the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

Issues:

a. Whether the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the Notice of Motion by insisting on recording evidence despite clear admissions in the pleadings? b. Whether the order passed by the Commercial Court amounts to a judgment and is thus appealable under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant’s Submissions: a. The written statement and counterclaim contained clear admissions supporting the appellant’s claim. b. Order XII Rule 6 of CPC allows the court to pass judgment on admissions without waiting for the determination of other questions. c. The Commercial Court’s order was based on irrelevant considerations and ignored the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

Respondent’s Submissions: a. The appeal was not maintainable as it was directed against an interlocutory order. b. The order did not amount to a judgment and was not appealable under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Ratio:

The Commercial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and misconstrued the scope and ambit of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for a fresh decision by a speaking order in accordance with the mandate of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. (Para 8-12)