Synopsis

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,30,382/- against the appellant (defendant) for unpaid supplies. The appellant defended the suit by setting up a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 30.08.2020, alleging a back‑to‑back arrangement involving a third party (M/s Bhavya Electricals). The trial court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the written statement contained an implied admission. The High Court set aside the decree, holding that there was no clear admission – the defence raised a triable issue regarding the MoU and the adjustment of dues. The court directed that both the subject suit and the appellant’s separate suit against the third party be heard and adjudicated together.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Prathiba M. Singh & Madhu Jain, JJ.
Date: April 1, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided (likely 2026:DHC:xxxx)
Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 (judgment on admissions); Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 96 appeals.

2. Legal Framework

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XII Rule 6 – power to pass judgment on admissions; Order XII Rule 6(1) – where a party makes a clear admission, the court may pass a decree without waiting for trial.

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 13 – appeals against decrees of Commercial Courts.

• Principles of “Judgment on Admissions”: Admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unconditional; if the defence raises a triable issue, the court should not decree the suit und

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.