9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the foreign judgment was given "on the merits of the case" and thus executable in India. 2. Applicability of permission from RBI under FERA for the execution of the decree. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the foreign judgment was given "on the merits of the case" and thus executable in India 1. Background: The decree holder obtained a decree from the Queens Bench Division of the High Court of the United Kingdom against the judgment debtor. The decree was based on a suit for recovery of a sum of lb5,470,212 along with interest, filed under Order 14 RSC, akin to Order 37 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, providing for summary procedure. The judgment debtor had initially participated but later failed to appear or file a supporting affidavit for the leave to defend application. 2. Judgment by the Queens Bench Division: The foreign court examined the judgment debtor's plea extensively but rejected it, holding that the plea of fraud and undue influence did not hold water. No appeal or revision was filed against this judgment, making it final. 3. Execution Petition in India: The decree holder filed an execution petition in the Delhi High Court under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. The judgment debtor objected, claiming the foreign judgment was not on merits and thus unexecutable under Section 13(b) CPC. The learned Single Judge rejected this objection, holding that the foreign judgment was on merits. 4. Legal Framework: Section 44A CPC allows for the execution of decrees from foreign courts in reciprocating territories as if passed by an Indian District Court, provided a certified copy of the decree and a certificate of satisfaction or adjustment are filed. Section 13 CPC lists exceptions where a foreign judgment is not conclusive, including judgments not given on merits. 5. Judgment Debtor's Argument: The judgment debtor argued that the foreign judgment was not on merits as it was rendered under summary procedure without recording evidence. The debtor cited several judgments to support this claim. 6. Learned Single Judge's Rationale: The learned Single Judge distinguished between judgments given by default and those given after considering the merits. The judge noted that the foreign court had examined the defense and found it untenable, thus rendering a judgment on merits. The judgment was not ex-parte or by default but was based on a detailed analysis of the defense. 7. Supreme Court Precedent: The case of International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd. was discussed, where the Supreme Court held that a judgment is on merits if it involves judicial consideration of the plaintiff's claim, even if ex-parte. The judgment debtor's defense was considered, and the decree was not passed merely due to non-appearance. 8. Conclusion: The Delhi High Court agreed with the learned Single Judge that the foreign judgment was on merits, as the defense was scrutinized and found unworthy of trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the execution was allowed to proceed. Issue 2: Applicability of permission from RBI under FERA for the execution of the decree 1. Secondary Objection: The judgment debtor also raised an objection regarding the need for RBI permission under FERA for executing the decree. 2. Court's Approach: The learned Single Judge did not decide on the applicability of FERA in the impugned judgment but issued notice to RBI for determining this question. Summary: The Delhi High Court upheld the execution of a foreign judgment from the Queens Bench Division of the High Court of the United Kingdom, ruling that it was given on merits. The court distinguished between judgments given by default and those involving judicial consideration of the defense. The secondary issue of RBI permission under FERA was not decided and was left for determination by the RBI. The appeal by the judgment debtor was dismissed, and the execution was allowed to proceed on merits.
|
