AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PAYMENT SCHEDULE,,
S.No.,Payable by,Amount Payable
1.,"Payable vide Cheque No. 617182 dt. 14.04.2016
drawn on Corporation Bank and will be banked and
cleared by 18thApril, 2016.","Rs. 3,50,00,000/-
2.,"Payable vide Cheque No. 617183 dt. 25.04.2016
drawn on Corporation Bank and will be naked and
cleared by 25.04.2016.","Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
3.,"Payable vide Cheque No. 617184 dt. 29.04.2016
drawn on Corporation Bank and will be naked and
cleared by 29.04.2016.","Rs. 2,50,00,000/-
4.,"Will be cleared within 45 days from the date of this
MOU.","Rs. 8,81,97,110/-
,TOTAL OUTSTANDING DUE,"RS. 15,81,97,11 0/-
entity of “EIEPL†and““ALL DIGITALâ€â€. This is subject to clearance of the First payment of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- as mentioned above.",,
On the basis of the admissions made in the MoU, the petitioner filed an application claiming an amount of  Rs. 13,24,79,663/- payable as on",,
24.06.2016. The said application was opposed by the respondents principally on the ground that the sum as stated in the MoU as payable to the,,
petitioner was premised on EIEIPL taking over the network of ADNIL and since the said transaction had not gone through, the question of any",,
admissions made in the MoU being held against ADNIL did not arise. In addition, it was also submitted that the amounts claimed pertained to all the",,
respondents before TDSAT and no break-up of the sum payable by  each respondent was specified. It was also pointed out that in the MoU, the",,
amount stated to be due to the petitioner was quantified at  Rs. 15,81,97,110/-, which was in excess of the amount claimed by the petitioner in its",,
application.,,
In view of the above, TDSAT held that as there are so many gray areas, the interest of justice would be subserved only if parties are permitted to",,
file evidence on affidavits and lead oral evidences as required.,,
The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the difference in the sum as mentioned in the MoU and as claimed in its application is for,,
the reason that the amount as claimed in the application was computed as payable on 24.06.2016 while the respondents had continued to receive,,
signals even thereafter and therefore, the amount as reflected in the MoU was larger. He also submitted that the MoU had an annexure indicating the",,
manner in which the amounts as payable by ADNIL had been worked out. He submitted that the MoU contained a clear admission on the part of,,
ADNIL and the petitioner was entitled to an order on such admissions.,,
Prima facie, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner appears to be merited. A plain reading of the MoU indicates that the sum payable",,
to the petitioner had been specified and further the breakup of the said amount had also been specified. Having stated the above, this Court is of the",,
view that no interference with the impugned order is called for as it is well settled that an admission made by any party is only a piece of evidence,,
which requires to be properly evaluated in the original proceedings; in this case, the proceedings before the TDSAT. It is also settled that whether to",,
pass a decree on admissions or not is at the discretion of the Court after evaluating the admissions. Unless the Court is satisfied that the admission is,,
unequivocal clear and unambiguous, the Court would not proceed on such basis. In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and Ors.:",,
(2000) 7 SCC 120 the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and explained that the principle will apply only in cases,,
where “there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed""",,
In Premsuk Das Assaram v. Udairam Gunga bux: AIR 1918 Calcutta 467, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as under:-",,
“A judgment on admission is not a matter of right; it is in the discretion of the Court, so that if a case involves question which cannot be",,
conveniently disposed of on a motion under the rule, the Court may, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse the motion. The discretion is judicial and an",,
erroneous exercise thereof may be open to correction by a court of appeal which, however, on well established principles, will be slow to interfere,",,
unless either of the parties has been manifestly and unfairly prejudiced.â€,,
A similar view was expressed by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Union of India v. M/s. Feroze and Co. AIR 1962 J&K 66, wherein the",,
court obseerved as under :-,,
“A judgment on admission under Order 12 rule 6 is a matter of discretion and not a matter of right and the court would not entertain an application,,
for such judgment when the case involves questions which cannot be conveniently dealt with in a motion under the rule...... In order that a judgment,,
may be obtained under Order 12 rule 6 the admission must be unconditional, clear and unequivocal.â€",,
It is further seen that TDSAT has exercised its discretion and has decided to evaluate the evidentiary value of the admissions after receiving,,
complete evidence. It is also noticed that the proceedings are at the stage of filing of affidavits of evidence and this Court has no reason to believe that,,
the TDSAT will not fully examine the MoU and the statements made thereunder since that is an admitted documents.,,
Further given the nature of dispute it is also expected that the petitioner’s petition would be disposed of expeditiously. This Court requests,,
TDSAT to do so as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the parties filing their affidavits of evidence.,,
The petition alongwith the pending application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.,,