2000 (8) TMI 1124 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assumption of Admiralty Jurisdiction by Andhra Pradesh High Court.
2. Applicability of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Distinction between judgments in rem and in personam.

Summary:

1. Assumption of Admiralty Jurisdiction by Andhra Pradesh High Court:
The key issue was whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court could assume Admiralty jurisdiction and pass an order of arrest in execution of a judgment and decree of the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Admiralty Court in London. The court held that the Andhra Pradesh High Court, being the successor of the Madras High Court, inherited the Admiralty jurisdiction, which was not atrophied in any way. The High Court's jurisdiction was affirmed based on the historical context and legislative provisions, including the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and the Government of India Acts of 1915 and 1935, protected by Article 225 of the Constitution.

2. Applicability of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court addressed whether Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked for the enforcement of a foreign judgment in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Section 44A provides an independent right for a foreign decree holder to enforce a decree in India, creating a legal fiction that makes the High Court the court which passed the decree. The court rejected the argument that the Civil Procedure Code was inapplicable to Admiralty or vice-admiralty jurisdiction, noting that Section 112(2) did not render the Code completely inapplicable to Admiralty cases. The court concluded that Section 44A is an enabling provision for enforcing foreign judgments, irrespective of their original character.

3. Distinction between Judgments in rem and in personam:
The appellant argued that the judgment of the English Court was in personam and not in rem, and thus, the Execution Petition for the arrest of the vessel was not maintainable. The court referred to various precedents and legal principles, including the Brussels Convention and the case of MV Elisabeth, to establish that the distinction between actions in rem and in personam has diminished. The court held that the Andhra Pradesh High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceeding under Section 44A could not be doubted, and the legal fiction created by Section 44A made the High Court competent to enforce the decree.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Andhra Pradesh High Court's jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 44A for enforcing the foreign judgment. The appellant was allowed to obtain the release of the attached ship by furnishing a bank guarantee, subject to the High Court's satisfaction and the undertakings required by the High Court's previous order.