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.# 4/10 Decree- 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.# 5/10 Rule 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.# 7/10 Duggal & 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.# 8/10 sum 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