Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Iqbal Dalla, filed a counter claim in a commercial suit filed by respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited seeking recovery of Rs.49,24,532/-. The appellant claimed that the respondent's written statement and written statement to the counter claim contained admissions regarding the appellant's claim. The appellant filed a Notice of Motion for Judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was rejected by the Commercial Court on 6th December 2023 on the ground that evidence was required. The appellant appealed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal. The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable as the impugned order amounted to a judgment finally adjudicating the rights of a party. On merits, the court found that the Commercial Court had misconstrued the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which permits the court to pass judgment on admissions without waiting for determination of other questions. The order suffered from jurisdictional infirmity as the court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Commercial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment on Admissions - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Scope and Ambit - The court may at any stage of the suit pass judgment on admissions without waiting for determination of other questions - The Commercial Court erred in holding that evidence was necessary before deciding the application - Held that the order suffered from jurisdictional infirmity as the court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested by law (Paras 10-11).
B) Commercial Law - Appeal against Order - Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Maintainability - An order rejecting an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC amounts to a judgment as it finally adjudicates the rights of a party - Appeal under Section 13(1-A) is maintainable against such an order (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the ground that evidence was required, and whether the appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is maintainable against such an order.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 6th December 2023 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Commercial Court to decide the application afresh by a speaking order bearing in mind the mandate contained in Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Pending interim applications stand disposed of.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC
- Judgment on admissions
- Commercial Courts Act 2015 Section 13(1-A)
- Jurisdictional infirmity
- Failure to exercise jurisdiction
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (2) 70
Commercial Appeal From Order No. 13 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 12445 of 2024
Alok Aradhe, CJ., Bharati Dangre, J.
Harish Pandya i/by Kalpesh Nansi for appellant, Roop Basu i/by M/s. The Law Point for respondent no.1
Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Commercial appeal against order rejecting application for judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 6th December 2023 rejecting his Notice of Motion for Judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Filing Reason
The Commercial Court rejected the application on the ground that evidence was required, which the appellant contended was contrary to law.
Previous Decisions
The Commercial Court rejected the Notice of Motion for Judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 6th December 2023.
Issues
Whether the appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is maintainable against an order rejecting an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Whether the Commercial Court erred in rejecting the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the ground that evidence was required.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The Commercial Court decided the application on irrelevant considerations, holding that evidence was necessary, which is contrary to the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Respondent: The appeal is not maintainable as it is directed against an order that is not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the court to pass judgment on admissions without waiting for determination of other questions. The Commercial Court's refusal to consider the application on the ground that evidence was required constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity as it failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order passed by the Commercial Court amounts to judgment as the same finally adjudicates the rights of the party.
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is extracted below for the facility of reference: ...
The order passed by the Commercial Court, therefore, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity in as much as the Commercial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law for deciding the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Procedural History
Respondent no.1 filed a Commercial Suit for recovery of Rs.49,24,532/-. Appellant filed a counter claim. Appellant filed a Notice of Motion for Judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Commercial Court rejected the Notice of Motion on 6th December 2023. Appellant filed the present appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Acts & Sections
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 13(1-A)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XII Rule 6
