The law with regard to the interpretation given to Order XII Rule 6 CPC is well settled in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himani Alloys Ltd. V. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as under:
“11. 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 XII 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 the defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a clear “admission”
which can be acted upon.”