9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 21 (3) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 2. Requirement of notice or opportunity to be given to the judgment-debtor before granting permission for executing a decree. 3. Application of principles of natural justice in the context of granting permission under Section 21 (3) (c) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India to the second respondent to execute a decree obtained against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the Act required the Reserve Bank of India to give notice before granting permission. However, a previous appeal dismissed this argument, stating that the Act did not impose such an obligation. The court held that the Act's provision was enabling and did not confer any right on the judgment-debtor or creditor. The court emphasized that the Act aimed to regulate foreign exchange and did not intend to affect existing rights determined by legal proceedings. Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice necessitated providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before granting permission. The court rejected this argument, stating that such an opportunity is only required in quasi-judicial proceedings affecting parties' rights. The Act's permission under Section 21 (3) (c) did not aim to alter existing rights determined by a decree. The court highlighted that the Act's purpose was to safeguard national economy and foreign exchange reserves, not to benefit the judgment-debtor. Issue 3: The court referred to a House of Lords case to support its interpretation of the Act's provisions. The House of Lords held that the Exchange Control Act, 1947, which had similar provisions, did not require an opportunity to be heard before executing a decree. The court concluded that the objectives and provisions of the Act did not mandate giving notice or hearing to the judgment-debtor before granting permission to execute a decree. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. In conclusion, the court held that the writ petition lacked substance and dismissed it, emphasizing that the Act's provisions did not require notice or opportunity to be given to the judgment-debtor before granting permission for executing a decree.
|
