9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the execution petition. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the execution petition. 3. Allegation of abuse of the process of the Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability: The judgment debtor argued that the execution petition is not maintainable because, under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), an application for execution of a foreign decree should be filed before a District Court and not the High Court. Section 44A of the CPC allows for the execution of decrees from superior courts of reciprocating territories in India as if they were passed by a District Court. However, the term "District Court" includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court, as per Section 2(4) of the CPC. The decree holder contended that, according to Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the Delhi High Court should be considered the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for suits exceeding Rs. 20.00 lacs. This section overrides the provisions of Section 44A of the CPC. The court referenced multiple cases, including Bakshi Lochan Singh and Ors. v. Jathedar Santokh Singh and Ors. and R.P. Sachdeva (deceased by L.R.) and Ors. v. The State, which established that the High Court could act as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for suits above a certain pecuniary value. The court concluded that for the purpose of Section 44A of the CPC, the High Court is a District Court and thus has the jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. 2. Jurisdiction: The judgment debtor contended that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the judgment debtor's registered office and business were in Ontario, Canada, and both parties were foreigners. The court noted that Section 44A of the CPC does not require the District Court to have jurisdiction to try the suit; it only necessitates that the decree be from a superior court of a reciprocating territory. The court dismissed the judgment debtor's reliance on the case of World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., which dealt with admiralty jurisdiction and was not applicable to execution proceedings under Section 44A of the CPC. The court also found that the judgment debtor had assets in Delhi, as evidenced by the registered office address of KEOPL and the operational activities of Mr. R.K. Naroola, a Director of the judgment debtor company, in Delhi. Therefore, the court held that it had the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. 3. Abuse of the Process of the Court: The judgment debtor argued that the execution petition constituted an abuse of the process of the court because the decree holder had already initiated proceedings in Ontario, Canada, and had entered into a settlement. The court examined the settlement agreement and found that it did not acknowledge the realization of any amount under the decree but merely provided security. The court emphasized that the duty of the court extends to ensuring that decrees are translated into realized amounts and that there is no provision in the CPC preventing simultaneous execution of a decree by two courts. The court cited Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. v. CEC Ltd. and Anr., which supported the simultaneous execution of decrees. The court also addressed the requirement of a certificate from the court passing the decree stating the amount recovered, if any. The absence of such a certificate does not preclude the execution of the decree, as other proofs of the amount recovered or due can be provided. In this case, there was no dispute that the entire amount under the decree was still due. Conclusion: The court found no merit in any of the objections raised by the judgment debtor regarding the maintainability, jurisdiction, or alleged abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the execution petition was upheld, and E.A. No. 385/2005 was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
|
