ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ESSAR STEEL LIMITED) v. MOORGATE INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Discusses the interpretation and application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, a widely used procedural provision.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8452
Decision Date: 09-06-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC); Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Limitation Act, 1963; Companies Act, 2013
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment extensively discusses Order XII Rule 6 CPC, concerning decrees on admission. It analyzes the scope of admissions, stating they can be inferred from facts and circumstances. It cites Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India, emphasizing that courts should not unduly narrow the rule's application. The judgment also references Karam Kapahi and others vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, noting that the principles behind Order XII Rule 6 aim to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment, exercised "ex debito justitiae". It is stated that admissions must be unconditional, unequivocal, and unambiguous, or based on undisputed inferences. The judgment finds that the Defendant's pleadings and written statements contain admissions regarding the security deposit. The Court also refers to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC in the context of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum. The judgment also refers to Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as applicable to the Commercial disputes, regarding awarding of costs.
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC): The judgment discusses Section 7 IBC regarding the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It also mentions Section 14 IBC, concerning the imposition of a moratorium on litigation/arbitration against the Plaintiff. Sections 13 and 15 IBC are referenced in relation to the issuance of public announcements inviting claims from creditors. The judgment quotes Section 31(1) IBC, stating that a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors is binding on all stakeholders. It also discusses Section 60(6) IBC, regarding the appropriate forum for deciding claims. The judgment emphasizes that the IBC aims for revival of the corporate debtor and that the resolution plan binds all stakeholders, extinguishing claims not part of the plan.
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: The judgment refers to Section 35 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regarding the awarding of costs in Commercial Suits. The court notes that it may consider awarding costs as mandated by the said provision.
- Limitation Act, 1963: The judgment discusses Section 18 of the Limitation Act, stating that the Defendant's emails are acknowledgments extending the period of limitation. It cites Khan Bahadur Shapoor Freedom Mazda Vs. Durga Prasad Chamaria, holding that acknowledgments must indicate the jural relationship and be construed liberally.
- Companies Act, 2013: The judgment states that a change of name of a company is a mere change in the nomenclature while the entity remains the same body corporate.
🔒 For Members Only