#judicial admission

The Bombay High Court affirmed that a defendant’s licensee status cannot be overturned merely because a title suit is pending, where concurrent findings are supported by judicial admissions and no cross-examination was attempted. This reinforces that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be used to reappreciate evidence, protecting licensees from speculative title challenges in summary proceedings.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a tenant’s admission of rent in the plaint precludes disputing the amount later, mandating defence striking under Section 13(6) of the MP Accommodation Control Act. The ruling clarifies that trial courts cannot entertain rent disputes once admitted, reinforcing landlord rights in eviction proceedings.

Madras High Court rules that when a buyer has paid 95% of the sale consideration and is in possession of the property, the doctrine of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act does not bar specific performance. The ruling clarifies that substantial compliance with payment and possession suffices for enforcing sale agreements, even if the balance is paid post-suit.

HP High Court rules that when the State admits a contractual employee's case mirrors a binding precedent, regularization with retroactive benefits is mandatory. The petitioner's six-year service was regularized with benefits dating back three years before filing, overriding pending SLP challenges.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the State’s judicial admission of similarity to the Sant Ram precedent obligates it to regularize daily wage workers after eight years of service, regardless of a pending Supreme Court status quo order. The decision reinforces the binding nature of judicial admissions in service law and ensures equal treatment for similarly situated employees.

MP High Court rules that clerical errors in pleadings contradicting the consistent case narrative and relief sought must be amended under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court emphasized that denying such amendments would prejudice the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial, especially when the error is purely typographical and does not alter the substance of the case.

Kerala High Court holds that individuals appointed under dying-in-harness schemes remain liable to maintain parents-in-law under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Bombay High Court holds that summary recovery under Section 101 of the MCS Act is valid where loan documents and audited accounts are produced, and bare denials cannot override judicial admissions.