Dismissed¶33

M/S. Medico Intercontinental Ltd., v. M/S. Vetogen Animal Health LLP

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/4841/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medico Intercontinental Ltd. v. Vetogen Animal Health LLP; Karnataka HC, 16.02.2026; WP No. 4841 of 2025 (GM-CPC); S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; Article 227 supervision of commercial court; Order 12 Rule 6 CPC admission-based judgment; conditions for invoking Order 12 Rule 6 (clear, definite, certain, unequivocal, unambiguous admission); rejection of plaint-dismissal application upheld; Commercial Courts Act timelines; recovery suit Rs.13,72,353/- in Com.O.S.No.179/2024; reliance on (2015) 5 SCC 423; AIR 2021 SC 3443; (2022) 10 SCC 477.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; petition dismissed, with a direction to the commercial court to dispose of Com.O.S.No.179/2024 in accordance with law bearing in mind the timelines prescribed in the Commercial Courts Act. ¶33

M/S. Medico Intercontinental Ltd., Vs M/S… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged admissions relied upon by the petitioner were clear, definite, certain, unequivocal and unambiguous so as to attract Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and justify dismissal of the suit. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The alleged admissions relied upon by the petitioner do not satisfy the required parameters (clear, definite, certain, unequivocal, unambiguous), so the petitioner was not entitled to invoke Order 12 Rule 6 CPC to seek dismissal of the suit; the commercial court was fully justified in rejecting the application.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶31

Key takeaways

Upon re-appreciation of the entire material on record, the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, consistent with the Apex Court decisions in Radhey Shyam, K.P. Natarajan and Mohamed Ali relied upon by this Court.ratio¶32
The commercial court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law, bearing in mind the timelines prescribed in the Commercial Courts Act.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 227, GM-CPC) by the 1st defendant in Com.O.S.No.179/2024 challenging the commercial court's order dated 16.10.2024 rejecting I.A.No.2 filed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's recovery suit for Rs.13,72,353/-. Held: Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be invoked only where the alleged admission is clear, definite, certain, unequivocal and unambiguous; the admissions relied upon by the petitioner did not satisfy those parameters, so the commercial court was fully justified in rejecting the application. Upon re-appreciation, the impugned order suffered no illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 227, consistent with Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan v. Muthalammal, AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya & others, (2022) 10 SCC 477. Petition dismissed; commercial court directed to dispose of the suit per Commercial Courts Act timelines.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 4841 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4841 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. MEDICO INTERCONTINENTAL LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 501, ADITRAJ ARCADE, NEAR HETVI TOWER 100FT RING ROAD, STELLITE, AHMEDABAD -380 015 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. PREET HANUMANDAS TANWAR

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

M/S. VETOGEN ANIMAL HEALTH LLP 164, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, AECS LAYOUT, RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560094 KARNATAKA INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S FINANCIAL MANAGER

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY MISS ANNIE ANUJA KULLU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR SETTING ASIDE ORDERS DATED 16.10.2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, DISMISSING I.A NO.2 IN COM.O.S.NO.179/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH90) AND CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT THE PLAINT IN COM.O.S.NO.179/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-90) AND ETC.,

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 4841 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition by the 1^st defendant in Com.O.S.No.179/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the commercial court, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit of the respondent - plaintiff was rejected by the commercial court.

¶22

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,72,353/- together with interest and other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, the defendants filed the instant application I.A.No.2 invoking Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and sought for dismissal of the suit on the basis of an alleged admission said to have been made by the plaintiff. The said application having been opposed by the plaintiff, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 4841 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶27

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will clearly indicate that the commercial court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated not only the material on record comprising of the pleadings and evidence of the parties but has also considered the provisions contained in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in order to come to the conclusion that before the said provision can be invoked, it is absolutely essential and necessary that the alleged admission of the plaintiff should be clear, definite, certain, unequivocal, unambiguous etc., so as to attract the said provisions, thereby leading to dismissal of the suit without permitting the parties to establish their respective claims after recording evidence. The commercial court took note of the fact that the alleged admissions relied upon by the petitioner do not satisfy or fulfill the said parameters and consequently, petitioner was not entitled to invoke the said provisions contained in Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and seek dismissal of the suit. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the commercial court was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by passing

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:9262 WP No. 4841 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the impugned order which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶32

Upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477 .

¶33

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the commercial court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law bearing in mind the timelines prescribed in the Commercial Courts Act.

¶34

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶35

SMA/SRL

M/S. Medico Intercontinental Ltd., v. M/S. Vetogen Animal Health LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Medico Intercontinental Ltd., v. M/S. Vetogen Animal Health LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S M Ramesh Vs Sri N S Jayaprakash

Kamalamma Vs Gurushanthappa

M/S Skylark Developers Vs M/S. Air Craft Employees

Sri Tajammul Pasha Vs Smt Shakira Sultana

Sri Basavaraju T N Vs Smt. Kavitha

Sri Basavaraju T N Vs Sri. Swaminatha