Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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