9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (11) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange Regulation Act, 1947, am. that in any event, only a conditional decree could be passed under that Act. The learned District Munsif, overruled the defence and decreed the suit. Thereafter, the second respondent herein applied to the first respondent for permission under Section 2l (3) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for executing the decree and that permission was granted to the second respondent by an order dated 11th January, 1967. Armed with this permission, the second respondent sought to execute the decree and the petitioner's objection was overruled. Against the order of the executing Court overruling the objection of the petitioner, the petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deciding. The learned Judge was of the view that it was not obligatory on the authority granting permission to give notice either to a judgment-debtor or to a creditor and that it does not speak of an opportunity being given to either of them and that the provision only enables the authority competent to grant the permission to ask either the judgment-debtor or the creditor to produce documents or to give information. The learned Judge held that it was only an enabling provision and not a provision which confers any right either on the judgment-debtor, or on the creditor. It is in this view the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. 3. In the present writ petition, Mr. V. N. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into the question again. I am of the view that this argument is not tenable at all. As a matter of fact, when the High Court deals with an appeal against an appellate order, it will be enough if a question of law is present for admitting the appeal. On the other hand, it is not every question of law that gives jurisdiction to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an order passed by a Subordinate Tribunal and the error of law which justifies interference must be an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, if at all, the jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this respect is narrower than the jurisdiction of the High Court considering an appeal against an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the permission of the Central Government or the Reserve Bank is required by the said provisions shall not be done without that permission shall prevent legal proceedings being brought in India to recover any sum which, apart from the said provisions and any such term, would be due whether as a debt, damages or otherwise, but- (a) the said provisions shall apply to sums required to be paid by any judgment or order of any Court as they apply in relation to other sums ; and (b) no steps shall be taken for the purpose of enforcing any judgment or order for the payment of any sum to which the said provisions apply except as respects so much thereof as the Central Government or the Reserve Bank as the case may be, may permit to be paid, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting the permission, the Reserve Bank of India ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. I am unable to accept this argument. The question of giving an opportunity to a person like the petitioner, of being heard will arise only in quasi-judicial proceedings, which will have the effect of affecting the rights of the parties. As far as the permission contemplated by Section 21 (3) (c) of the Act is concerned, it does not purport to affect the rights of any of the parties. The rights and obligations of the parties have already been determined in the suit or legal proceedings initiated in which a decree has been passed in favour of the one party against the other. Once a decree has been passe, the Judgment-debtor is und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrol Act, 1947. In that case, the respondents who carried on business and were resident outside the scheduled territories as defined in the Exchange Control Act, 1947, were holders in due course of three bills of exchange of which the appellants were acceptors and which were dishonoured on presentation. The respondents brought an action in the High Court for the amount of the bills and the appellants contended that by reason of the term implied in the bills by Section 33 (1), the bills were not due and payable since Treasury permission had not been given. That contention was overruled by all the Courts including the House of Lords. I may mention here that the provisions of Section 33 (1) of the Exchange Control Act, 1947, correspond m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
