Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The Commercial Court Appeal has been filed against an order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Commercial Court in a Commercial Original Petition (C.O.P.No.28 of 2026) filed by the respondent under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’). The respondent sought for an ex parte ad-interim order directing the appellant to secure the admitted outstanding dues of Rs.6,69,52,278/- along with contractual interest @ 15% per annum from the due date till the date of payment by depositing the sum into the Court with liberty to the respondent to withdraw the same.

2. By the impugned order, the Commercial Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.6,69,52,278/- in Court within 4 weeks from the date of service of notice on the appellant and made the matter returnable on 17.03.2026.

3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The primary contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Commercial Court erred in giving the impugned direction ex parte and without sufficient reasons for the same. Senior Counsel submits that the appellant was set ex parte as on the date of the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent (petitioner in the C.O.P) relies on the appellant’s reply dated 21.09.2024 contending that it contains an admission of the appellant’s obligation to pay Rs.6,69,52,278/-.

6. The respondent filed the C.O.P under section 9 of the 1996 Act seeking ex parte ad-interim measures specifically praying for a direction on the respondent to secure the admitted amount. By the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, the Commercial Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.6,69,52,278/- in Court within four weeks from the service of notice and made the matter returnable on 17.03.2026. The Court is informed that the appellant sought for at least four adjournments before the Commercial Court. The respondent (petitioner in the C.O.P) filed an application for non-compliance of the direction passed by the Trial Court. The Court is also informed that the matter is posted today for compliance.

7. Without going into the merits of the case, we note that the respondent sent five mails to the appellant on 30.08.2024, 03.09.2024, 09.09.2024, 12.09.2024 and 16.09.2024 regarding the outstanding amount of Rs.13,01,10,418/- payable by the appellant to the respondent. One of such mails dated 16.09.2024 has been placed for our perusal.

8. The Court is informed that the appellant failed to respond to any of the five mails and finally responded by way of a mail dated 21.09.2024. We have carefully perused this mail. The mail contains a tabulated statement of the particulars due from the appellant to the respondent and is headlined, ‘Financial arrangement the total amount due to AOI is tabulated below’. AOI stands for American Oncology Institute which is the respondent entity. The last row of the table specifies the ‘Net Payable to AOI’ as ‘Rs.6,69,52,278/-.’

9. Although Senior Counsel seeks to rely on the paragraph immediately following the table to argue that the appellant disputed the said amount, we are unable to accept this contention. The table in the appellant’s mail dated 21.09.2024 gives a clear and unequivocal indication of the appellant’s admitted liability to the respondent, at least to the extent of Rs.6,69,52,278/-. Moreover, the paragraph immediately following the table reiterates the appellant’s liability to the respondent to Rs.6.69 Crores, approximately. The alleged dispute now sought to be raised by the appellant is not evident from this paragraph.

10. We, accordingly, find no error in the impugned order regarding the appellant’s admission of liability to the respondent to the extent of Rs.6,69,52,278/-.

11. Himani Alloys Limited Vs. Tata Steel Limited (2011 SCC OnLine SC 890), in fact, supports the case of the respondent since the Supreme Court held that an admission should be categorical and should also be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. In the present case, the table contained in the appellant’s email dated 21.09.2024 constitutes such an unequivocal admission, aligning with the principles of Order XII Rule 6 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding ‘Judgment on Admissions’.

12. Hence, we do not find any scope for interference with the impugned order dated 10.02.2026. Needless to say, the appellant has liberty to contest the C.O.P. in accordance with law.

13. COMCA No.22 of 2026, along with all connected application, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.