9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Transmission of foreign decree for execution in India without prior permission under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Analysis: The civil miscellaneous appeal challenges the transmission order of a decree obtained in the High Court of Singapore by the respondent, a resident of Singapore, against the appellants in India. The appellants raised objections based on the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, specifically Sections 5 and 21. The appellants argued that execution cannot proceed without prior permission from the Reserve Bank or Central Government. However, the respondent contended that permission is only required before withdrawing the money, not for executing the decree. The court analyzed the provisions of the Act, noting that Section 21(3) allows legal proceedings for recovery without permission but restricts enforcement of judgments without such permission. The court emphasized that execution by a foreign resident requires permission before proceeding, as per the Act. The court highlighted the exceptions within Section 21(3), stating that the Act's provisions apply to sums payable under court orders and prevent enforcement without permission. The court rejected the respondent's argument that sub-clause (b) of Section 21(3) only applies to payment requests, clarifying that it encompasses enforcement actions. Referring to a previous case, the court affirmed that execution by a foreign resident necessitates permission before proceeding. The court distinguished a prior judgment regarding the right to be heard by Reserve Bank authorities, emphasizing the current case's focus on enforcement without proper permission. Regarding the civil miscellaneous appeal, the court determined that the transmission order under Section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code did not constitute enforcement steps as outlined in the Act. The court clarified that while the decree-holder cannot take actions against the judgment debtor without permission, the current filing for transmission did not breach the Act's provisions. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the decree-holder's actions did not amount to enforcement steps and were permissible under the law. The court also addressed a separate issue raised by the appellants regarding exchange rate discrepancies, stating that it was not within the scope of the current appeal and should be pursued in the appropriate forum. In conclusion, the court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal, upholding the legality of the transmission order for the foreign decree's execution in India. The court clarified the distinction between enforcement actions requiring permission and procedural steps like transmission, emphasizing compliance with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for execution by foreign residents.
|
