CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Decree  A Suit On admission must be clear and unambiguous: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has provided clarity on the interpretation of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C), emphasizing that admissions for a decree on admission must be clear and unambiguous. The court’s observations shed light on several critical aspects of civil procedure and jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The court’s observation on Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C was significant. The judgment stated, “The legislative intent behind this provision is to avoid unnecessary trials and ensure speedy disposal of litigation based on admissions in pleadings. However, the admission should be clear and unambiguous, without leaving room for further evidence or clarification.”

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the jurisdiction of regular civil courts in commercial disputes, particularly in light of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court noted, “Sections 6 and 7 of the Act require a harmonious interpretation to avoid inconsistency between these provisions. While inherent lack of jurisdiction would vitiate proceedings, mere lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction may not.”

The Interpretation of the term “used” in Section 2(1)©(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act was another key point of discussion in the judgment. The court observed, “The term ‘used’ denotes ‘actually used,’ not ‘likely to be used’ or ‘ready for use.’ This interpretation includes disputes related to license fees or other periodic payments for the use of immovable property.”

The judgment also dealt with the application for attachment before judgment, stressing the importance of due process. The court stated, “An application for attachment before judgment should not be summarily rejected without issuing a show-cause notice or passing a conditional order of attachment. Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII C.P.C must be adhered to.”

This judgment serves as a valuable reference for legal practitioners, highlighting the need for precision in admissions and a comprehensive understanding of jurisdiction in commercial disputes. It reaffirms the importance of adhering to procedural rules, ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Legal experts and practitioners have welcomed the clarity provided by the Kerala High Court in this judgment, which is expected to have a significant impact on civil litigation procedures and jurisdictional matters.

Date of Decision: 2 November 2023

C.K. SURENDRAN VS KUNHIMOOSA   

Latest Legal News