Allowed¶12

Iqbal Dalla v. Life Insurance Corporation India Limited

Bombay HC7 Feb 2025COMAO/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment on admissions; Section 13(1-A) Commercial Courts Act 2015 appealability against orders; maintainability of commercial appeal from order; notice of motion rejected for want of evidence quashed and remanded; Bombay High Court Commercial Court; counter claim commission withheld Life Insurance Corporation; Rs. 49,24,532 suit claim.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 6 December 2023 quashed; matter remitted to the Commercial Court to decide the Notice of Motion afresh by a speaking order bearing in mind the mandate of Order XII Rule 6 CPC; pending interim applications disposed of. ¶12

Iqbal Dalla vs Life Insurance Corporation India Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether an appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 lies against an order (as opposed to a judgment) passed by the Commercial Court. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The learned Judge of the Commercial Court failed to construe the scope and ambit of Order XII Rule 6 CPC: once admissions of fact are made in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit decide the application without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties; insistence on prior recording of evidence misread the provision.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is maintainable: Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for an appeal against a judgment as well as an order, and the impugned order rejecting the Notice of Motion amounts to a judgment because it finally adjudicates the rights of the party.

¶8

Key takeaways

The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional infirmity because the Commercial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law for deciding the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and therefore cannot be sustained.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Alok Aradhe, CJ & Bharati Dangre, J), 7 February 2025 — Commercial Appeal from Order No. 13 of 2024. Held: (i) an appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 lies against a judgment as well as an order; the impugned order rejecting the appellant's Notice of Motion for Judgment on admissions was a 'judgment' as it finally adjudicated rights, so the appeal was maintainable despite the respondent's objection invoking Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. (ii) The Commercial Court erred in holding that the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC could be decided only after recording evidence: the provision permits judgment on admissions, made in the pleadings or otherwise, at any stage of the suit and without waiting for determination of any other question. (iii) The impugned order therefore suffered from jurisdictional infirmity; it was quashed and the application remitted to the Commercial Court for fresh decision by a speaking order keeping in mind the mandate of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Background: respondent no.1 (LIC) sued for Rs.49,24,532/-; appellant's counter claim for withheld commission was said to be admitted in respondent's written statements.

¶1

3-COMAO-13-2024

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 13 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 12445 OF 2024

¶5

Iqbal Dalla .. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Life Insurance Corporation India Limited & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Harish Pandya i/by Kalpesh Nansi for appellant. Mr. Roop Basu i/by M/s. The Law Point for respondent no.1.

¶9

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶10

DATE: 7^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeal is heard finally.

¶13

2. In this appeal under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 6^th December, 2023 by which Notice of Motion for Judgment and Decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been rejected.

¶14

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly state are that the respondent no.1 has filed Commercial Suit for seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.49,24,532/-. In the aforesaid suit, the appellant filed a counter claim seeking recovery of the commission withheld and appropriated by the respondent no.1.

¶15

¶16

3-COMAO-13-2024

¶17

4. According to the appellant, the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1 as well as written statement to the counter claim filed by the respondent no.1 contained an admission with regard to claim of the appellant made in the counter claim. The appellant thereupon filed a Notice of Motion for Judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The Commercial Court by an order dated 6^th December, 2023 has rejected the aforesaid Notice of Motion. Hence, this appeal.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Notice of Motion preferred by the appellant under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has been decided on irrelevant considerations in as much as learned Judge of the Commercial Court has held that without recording evidence it is not possible to deal with the application preferred by the appellant under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

¶19

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that this appeal is not maintainable as it is directed against an order passed by the Commercial Court and appeal could only against an order passed by the Commercial Court is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC.

¶20

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

8. The issue with regard to maintainability of the appeal need not detain us as Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for an appeal against Judgment as well as an order. The impugned order passed by the Commercial Court amounts to judgment as the same finally

¶22

¶23

3-COMAO-13-2024

¶24

adjudicates the rights of the party. In so far as the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, the appellant is seeking decree on the basis of admission which according to him has been made in the plaint as well as in the written statement filed to the counter claim.

¶25

9. From perusal of the order passed by the Commercial Court, it is evident that the Commercial Court, inter alia , has held that application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC will require the parties to adduce evidence and only thereafter the said application can be decided.

¶26

10. Learned Judge of the Commercial Court has failed to construe the scope and ambit of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is extracted below for the facility of reference:

¶27

“ORDER XII ADMISSIONS

¶28

1 to 5 …….

¶29

6. Judgment on admissions. – (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.”

¶30

11. Thus, from the perusal of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, it is evident that in case the Court is satisfied that admissions have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit decide the application without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties and may make such order or give judgment as it may think fit. The order passed

¶31

¶32

3-COMAO-13-2024

¶33

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.

¶34

12. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It 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 of CPC.

¶35

13. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶36

14. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶37

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶38

Digitally signed by PRAVIN PRAVINDASHARATHPANDIT DASHARATHPANDITDate:2025.02.10 14:18:21 +0530

¶39

Iqbal Dalla v. Life Insurance Corporation India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Dalla v. Life Insurance Corporation India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union of India

Al Kabeer Exports Private Limited vs Avana Global Fzco

T.S Natrajan vs State of Maharashtra

Malad Keshav Mansion Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader

Rubi Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs S S Enterprises

Friends Engineering Corporation vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation