Decided on August 11,2004



D.C.Thakur, - (1.) IN spite of that both the contending parties have presented their respective pleadings, those parties have adduced the evidences in the form of documentary evidences to corroborate what they have tended to contend with force against each other and this Tribunal has also been about to frame the issues both of fact as well as of law in the present proceeding and especially after receiving one petition for the temporary injunction with respect to the properties of the defendants, this Tribunal has been materially of the view that the specific defences, which have not only been taken out in the written statement presented by the impleaded three defendants jointly to traverse the claimed entitlement of the applicant Bank but have also been aimed at establishing the claim of the contesting defendants against the Bank have, all on a sudden, been bidden a farewell by an application jointly preferred by the defendants on July 4, 2003. The above view has been factually arrived at by this body, especially when it is seriously scrutinising the application of the Bank for the temporary injunction to be granted to such Bank in respect of the different properties of the defendants that have been earlier secured to the above Bank.
(2.) The said application of the defendants should be known as an application made aftermath the written statement so presented and the evidences led by both the contending parties to establish beyond doubt their respective contention. The said application should also be given the necessary name for its own distinction; that is it has been meant for a judicial admission expressly and constructively made by the answering three defendants in clear and unambiguous words as to their joint legal liability towards a sum of Rs. 50,06,949.70 P. for the steady recovery of which the applicant Bank has preferred one application on October 9, 1998 against the above defendants. Before dealing with the nature and scope of judicial admission as well as the duties to be performed by this judicial body in the context of such typical admission on record, it is being worthwhile to reproduce what have been categorically contained in the application preferred on Friday, July 4, 2003 before this Tribunal. The said application has been actually made, after being duly verified by Shri Bhaskar Mukherjee, the defendant No. 2, who is the proprietor of the defendant No. 1. The entire application is being consequently set-forth below: "That the applicant Bank had filed an application praying for the following reliefs: (1) To issue a certificate for the recovery of Rs. 50,06,949.70 against the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally with pendente lite and future interest @ 20.25% per annum with quarterly rest from dated 16.9.98 to the application till full and final realisation of the dues under the certificate and the reliefs. (2) That without prejudice to the rights and contentions of your petitioner, your petitioner intends to settle the dispute towards full and final settlement of the dues of Rs. 15,00,000/-. As at present your petitioner is suffering from financial stringency therefore your petitioner will pay the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/-on 4th October, 2003. The second instalment will be paid as per schedule:- JUDGEMENT_645_TLDR0_20040.htm (3) Your petitioner states that your petitioner intends to settle the dispute towards full and final settlement of the claim for Rs. 15,00,000/- and if the said amount is not settled then your petitioner will be at liberty to contest the suit. (4) This application is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of your petitioner which is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal. (5) This application is made bonafide and for the interest of justice. Under the aforesaid circumstances it is humbly prayed before your Honour to settle the dispute towards full and final settlement of the claim for Rs. 15,00,000/- without prejudice to the right and contentions of your petitioner and/or to pass such further order or orders or directions made deem fit and proper." From the said application, it categorically appears that the defendants have preferred the above application with the intent of settling the dispute for a sum of Rs. 15 lacs only as the full and final settlement of the entire claim. In this regard a question of serious importance is being raised: whether can a Tribunal superimpose any compromise upon the contending parties before itself?
(3.) AT the outset of the present discussion, it has been specifically pointed out that the said application has given rise to a stage to be known as the stage of admission which is sufficient to pave the way for the application of the provisions as contained in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Order XII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908) as well as Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872).;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.