Gauhati High Court
Techcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs T.K. Engineering Consortium Private … on 6 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010203782025
2026:GAU-AS:6184
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/391/2025
TECHCON INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING
ITS LOCAL PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT ASSAM TRUNK ROAD, TOKOBARI,
OPPOSITE MAHAVIR BHAWAN, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI - 781
001, AND ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P-27, PRINCEP STREET, 2ND FLOOR,
P.S.- BOWBAZAR, KOLKATA-700072, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS
DIRECTOR SRI DILIP BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI RAM
NARAYAN BANSAL, R/O A.T. ROAD, TOKOBARI, GUWHAATI-781001, DIST-
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
T.K. ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM PRIVATE LIMITED AND 6 ORS.
A COMPANY HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT GAMES VILLAGE, BLOCK
- A3, FLAT NO. 202, BELTOLA, P.S - BASISTHA, GUWAHATI - 781 029 AND
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MODEL VILLAGE, P.O AND P.S -
NAHARLAGUN, DIST - PAPUM PARE, PIN 791110, ARUNACHAL PRADESH
2:RATU TECHI
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 COMPANY CARRYING ON
HIS BUSINESS INTER-ALIA FROM GAMES VILLAGE
BLOCK - A3
FLAT NO. 202
BELTOLA
P.S- BASISTHA
GUWAHATI - 781 029 AND RESIDENT OF MODEL VILLAGE
NAHARLAGUN
P.O AND P.S - NAHARLAGUN
DIST - PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN CODE- 791110
Page No.# 2/10
3:TECHI TARA
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 COMPANY CARRYING ON
HIS BUSINESS INTER-ALIA FROM GAMES VILLAGE
BLOCK - A3
FLAT NO. 202
BELTOLA
P.S- BASISTHA
GUWAHATI - 781 029 AND RESIDENT OF MODEL VILLAGE
NAHARLAGUN
P.O AND P.S - NAHARLAGUN
DIST - PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN CODE- 791110
4:MRS. TECHI JULLY
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 COMPANY CARRYING ON
HIS BUSINESS INTER-ALIA FROM GAMES VILLAGE
BLOCK - A3
FLAT NO. 202
BELTOLA
P.S- BASISTHA
GUWAHATI - 781 029 AND RESIDENT OF MODEL VILLAGE
NAHARLAGUN
P.O AND P.S - NAHARLAGUN
DIST - PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN CODE- 791110
5:TECHI TOTU
CONTROLLING PERSON OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 COMPANY CARRYING ON
HIS BUSINESS INTER-ALIA FROM GAMES VILLAGE
BLOCK - A3
FLAT NO. 202
BELTOLA
P.S- BASISTHA
GUWAHATI - 781 029 AND RESIDENT OF MODEL VILLAGE
NAHARLAGUN
P.O AND P.S - NAHARLAGUN
DIST - PAPUM PARE
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PIN CODE- 79111
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. O P BHATI, S. K. GUPTA,MR. P SARMA,MR T C DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Page No.# 3/10
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 06.05.2026
Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
None appears for the respondents.
2. Pertinent to mention that despite service of notice, the
respondents failed to appear before this Court on the last two
consecutive dates, as is evident from the order dated 27.03.2026.
3. By way of this application filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC“), the petitioner
has assailed the validity of the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in
Commercial Suit No. 101 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)
No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “trial
court”), insofar as it relates to the rejection of Petition No. 4147/2024
filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 read with
Section 151 CPC seeking a decree on admission to the extent of the
admitted liability.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff
instituted a Commercial Suit before the trial court for realization of Rs.
30,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Crore) against the
respondents/defendants. The reliefs claimed in the suit read as
follows: –
“The Plaintiff, therefore seeks pray for Order, Judgment and
Page No.# 4/10Decree-
A) Directing the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff, All That –
a]Rs.18,72,80,567/-(=Rs.18,44,50,927/-+ Rs.28,29,640/-)
towards the Principal amount due;
b] Rs.6,53,75,805/-being the Interest on the sum mentioned in
prayer [a] above @ 19.5% per annum compounded monthly
calculated from the date of default till 31.10.2021 or such
other amount as to this Ld. Court may deem fit;
c] Rs.2,09,68,928/-being the Interest on the @ 19.5% per
annum compounded monthly calculated from 1.11.2021 till
31.3.2022 or such other amount as to this Ld. Court may deem
fit;
d] The Interest on the sum mentioned in prayer [a], [b] & [c]
above @ 19.5% per annum compounded monthly to be
calculated from the 1.4.2022 till the date of payment or such
other amount as to this Ld. Court may deem fit, being interest
pendente lite and future interest;
B) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating,
encumbering, parting with, disposing of, varying the Assets of the
Defendants without paying the aforesaid sum to the Plaintiff;
C) Mandatory Injunction;
D) Receiver;
E) Attachment;
F) Cost of the suit;
G) The other relief or reliefs as to the plaintiffs may be found
entitled;”
5. The respondents/defendants thereafter entered appearance and
filed their joint written statement. It is the specific case of the
petitioner/plaintiff that in the said written statement, the
respondents/defendants unequivocally admitted that an amount of Rs.
2,34,36,937.32 remained due and payable to the petitioner/plaintiff.
Accordingly, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order XII
Page No.# 5/10Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a decree on admission to
the extent of the admitted amount, which was registered as Petition
No. 4147/2024. In addition thereto, the petitioner/plaintiff also filed
another application under Order XII Rule 8 CPC seeking a direction
upon the defendants to produce certain documents, which was
registered as Petition No. 4148/2024. Joint objections came to be filed
by the respondents/defendants against both the applications.
6. Thereafter, by a common order dated 25.06.2025, the learned
trial court allowed Petition No. 4148/2024 filed under Order XII Rule 8
CPC, but rejected Petition No. 4147/2024 seeking judgment on
admission. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been
preferred.
7. Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a
meaningful reading of the written statement leaves no room for doubt
that the respondents/defendants admitted that a sum of Rs.
2,34,36,937.32/- remained due and payable to the petitioner/plaintiff.
It is contended that once there existed a clear, categorical and
unequivocal admission of liability, the learned trial court ought to have
exercised jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed the suit
to the extent of the admitted amount.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have
carefully perused the materials available on record.
9. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to Order XII Rule 6
CPC, which reads as follows:-
Page No.# 6/10
“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.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree
shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree
shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.]”
10. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly
clear that where admissions of fact have been made either in the
pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may, at
any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or suo
motu, proceed to pass such judgment as it may deem fit having regard
to such admissions, without awaiting adjudication of the remaining
disputes between the parties.
11. In Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd., reported in (2011)
15 SCC 273, the Apex Court observed as follows:-
“9. It is true that a judgment can be given on an ‘admission’
contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be
categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party
making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6
being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory
but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and
circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind
that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which
permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an
appeal on merits. Therefore unless the admission is clear,
unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should
not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest
the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a
clear ‘admission’ which can be acted upon. (See also Uttam Singh
Page No.# 7/10Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Others, Karam
Kapahi and Others Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and
Another, and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh
Chadha (Huf) and Another. There is no such admission in this case.”
12. The principle that emerges from the aforesaid decision is that the
jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and can be
exercised only where the admission is clear, categorical, conscious and
unequivocal. At the same time, once such an admission is discernible
from the pleadings, the court would be justified in passing a judgment
on admission to the extent of the admitted liability even if disputes
continue with regard to the remaining claims between the parties. The
determinative test, therefore, is whether the admission is sufficiently
definite to bind the party making it.
13. Tested on the aforesaid principles, in order to determine whether
the respondents/defendants had made a clear and unequivocal
admission regarding the liability of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/-, it becomes
necessary to examine the relevant paragraphs of the written
statement, which read as follows:-
“9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph no. 8 of
the Money Suit the answering defendant/deponent denied the
alleged allegations in toto. That the plaintiff have to be put to strict
proof individually as to how he is espousing the cause action as
has been contended by him without submitting proper bill till date.
The plaintiff ought to justify at the outset as to how cause of action
has been arosen vis-a vis the defendant and in view thereof, how
the present suit is maintainable in eyes of law. The annexures filed
by the plaintiff are fabricated and concocted documents which has
been filed before this court in a hasty and causal manner. As per
our calculation for Palin Section-Pkg-3 & 4 bills from February 2019
to July 2020 is a sum of Rs. 5,67,96,198/-only and Sangram
Section-Pkg 5, 6, 7 & 8 bills from February 2019 to July 2020 is a
Page No.# 8/10sum of Rs. 2,55,62,861/- only, this calculation is based on
Equipment Hiring Agreement Clause 1, 5 & 6 of dated 06.01.2019.
Hence told billed amounts are as follow:-
Total Amount as per billed : Rs. 5,67,96,198 + 2, 55,62,861/-
: Rs. 8,23,59,059/-
GST total amount @ 18 % : Rs. 1,48,24,630.62/-
(illegible) : Rs. 9,71,83,689.62/-
Total amount of ad-hoc
Payment : Rs. 7,37,46,752.30/-
Balance net amount to
be paid now : Rs. 9,71,83,689.62 - Rs.
7,37,46,752.30
: Rs. 2,34,36,937.32 (Balance amount)
That the earlier some payment entries as well as on calculation
mistakes has been corrected and now only due remaining is a sum
of Rs. 2,34,36,937/- as on date.
22. That your humble deponent begs to submit that the deponent
had clarified his stand through letter dated 07.08.2020. Therefore,
the deponent had verified & corrected as per the Clause (1), (5), (12)
& (17) of Equipment Hiring Agreement dated 06.01.2019. And after
carefully verified the adhoc advance payment entries some
anomalies has been detected in our letter dated 07.03.2020,
thereafter, the deponent had duly corrected said anomalies and
now the remaining dues as on date is of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/-
(Balance amount) only.”
14. A careful reading of the aforesaid paragraphs unmistakably
demonstrates that the respondents/defendants themselves computed
the outstanding amount payable to the petitioner/plaintiff and
categorically stated that “now only due remaining is a sum of Rs.
2,34,36,937/- as on date” and further reiterated in paragraph 22 that
“the remaining dues as on date is of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/- .” The
admission is neither inferential nor ambiguous. Rather, it is express,
Page No.# 9/10
conscious, unequivocal and founded upon their own computation of
the outstanding dues.
15. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial court for declining
relief under Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be sustained. The mere
existence of disputes with respect to the remaining components of the
claim or the methodology adopted by the defendants while computing
the amount payable would not dilute or efface an otherwise
unequivocal admission of liability to the extent of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/-
Even assuming that disputes survive with regard to the balance claims
raised in the suit, the same could not have furnished a valid ground to
deny a decree confined to the admitted liability.
16. It is well settled that the object underlying Order XII Rule 6 CPC
is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of the
admitted claim and thereby curtail unnecessary prolongation of
litigation. Once a clear admission exists on record, the Court would be
justified in exercising jurisdiction under the said provision
notwithstanding the pendency of disputes in respect of other claims.
17. In the present case, the written statement, read as a whole,
leaves no manner of doubt that the respondents/defendants
acknowledged their liability towards the petitioner/plaintiff to the
extent of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/- Consequently, this Court is of the
considered view that the learned trial court failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in it under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in accordance with
the settled principles governing judgments on admission.
Page No.# 10/10
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the
learned trial court, insofar as it rejects Petition No. 4147/2024 filed by
the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, is hereby set aside
and quashed.
19. Resultantly, the suit stands decreed to the extent of the admitted
liability of Rs. 2,34,36,937.32/- in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and
against the respondents/defendants. Let the decree be drawn
accordingly in accordance with law.
20. The Civil Revision Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
