Dismissed

Kiran Anant Karnik v. Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Aug 2007WP/8427/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the Court held that the handwritten statement admitted installment payment terms rather than a full liquidated debt, preventing a judgment on admission for the total claimed amount.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is rejected as no clear admission of total liability was found.

Kiran Anant Karnik Vs Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis and Ors. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.8427 OF 2006

¶3

 Shri Kiran Anant Karnik ..Petitioner.
 Vs.

¶4

 Mr.Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.Sanjiv Sawant, adv. for the Petitioner.
 Ms.Gouri Godse, adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶6

CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J.

¶7

DATE : AUGUST 10, 2007.

¶8

 P.C.

¶9

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.

¶10

 2. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit

¶11

 No.171 of 2005 for recovery of an amount of
 Rs.5,42,000/- with future interest at the rate of 24%
 per annum. According to him, the respondents have
 received an amount of Rs.4,39,000/- from him for
 purchase of certain goods for running business and they
 have failed to make the payment. In the Written
 Statement filed by the respondents, it was admitted
 that the petitioner had provided certain furniture,
 invertors, batteries, etc. worth Rs.4,39,000/- to the
 respondent no.1 and as per the agreement, the amount
 was to be repaid in the instalments of Rs.1 lakh per
 year beginning from August, 06 and the last instalment
 of Rs.39,000/- would be paid in the August, 2010. The

¶12

:2:

¶13

 respondent/defendent no.1 deposited cheque of Rs.1 lakh
 before the trial Court. The petitioner had filed an
 application before the trial Court seeking direction
 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. to give direction
 to the respondent/defendant to deposit complete amount
 of Rs.5,42,000/- in view of the admission in the
 Written Statement. Application came to be rejected by
 the Civil Judge, Senior Division and, therefore, the
 petitioner has come to this Court in Writ Petition.

¶14

 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends
 that in view of provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the
 C.P.C., when there is a clear admission of the
 liability, the Court can pass judgment on admission and
 in support of this, he placed reliance upon Uttamsingh

¶15

Dugal and Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India and others
AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740. The Supreme Court in that
 case observed that where there is clear admission of
 the liability, the judgment may be passed and there can
 be no dispute about this legal position. However, if
 written statement is carefully read, there is no such
 clear admission of liability of Rs.5,42,000/-.
 Admission is only about receipt of goods worth
 Rs.4,39,000/- and the respondent has pleaded in
 agreement that the amount is liable to be paid in the
 instalment of Rs.1 lakh per year beginning with August,
 2006 and the last instalment is due in August, 2010.

¶16

:3:

¶17

 In view of this, it is impossible to hold that
 petitioner is entitled to get payment of Rs.5,42,000/-.

¶18

 I find no substance in the writ petition.

¶19

4. Petition stands dismissed.

¶20

[J.H.BHATIA, J.]

Kiran Anant Karnik v. Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Anant Karnik v. Sachin Sudhir Karkhanis and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Bank of India Vs Messrs. Ashoka Constructions

M/S. Chhotalal Keshavji Shah Vs J.R. Nazir and Ors.

M/S. Technomax Engineering Products Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolhapur

Sopan Janardhan Pawar and Anr. Vs Babruwan Bhanudas Awatade and Ors.

Sopan Janardhan Pawar and Anr. Vs Babruwan Bhanudas Awatade and Ors.

Shivaji Narayan Dhatrak Vs Ayub Noor Mohammad Sayyed and Ors.