JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The Decree Holders have moved this Court for leave to execute the decree under section 13 r/w. section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holders have annexed a certificate from the Master of Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, that the decree for a sum of US$ 1,609,135.00 plus interest/liquidated damages to be assessed, remains outstanding in the sum of US$ 1,457,230.30 with interest/liquidated damages to be assessed. The certificate is dated 5-10-1998. Exhibit "C" is the Statement of Claim by the decree holders.

2. Judgment Debtors have filed their reply through the constituted attorney of judgment Debtor No. 2. The principle contentions as raised in the said reply is that a decree cannot be executed for the following reasons;

i) That the consent given, based on which a decree was passed on admission was not a free consent;

ii) That the decree violates the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act;

iii) That Decree is not on merits;

iv) That Rate of interest in the form of liquidated damages is in violation of the laws of this country; and

v) That Application for execution is not properly made to the Principal Civil Court as the High Court is not a District Court for the purposes of sections 13 and 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Decree holders have filed a rejoinder, to which is annexed a letter dated March 9, 1998 written by the judgment Debtor No. 1 to Kearns Company Decree Holder's Solicitors alongwith the acknowledgment of service of writ of summons presented by the Asprey Finance Limited. Also letter dated March 14, 1998 by judgment Debtor No. 2 to Solicitors for Glade Securities Limited alongwith the acknowledgment of service of writ of summons. Also annexed is a letter dated 6-4-1999 by the Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India to the Advocates of the decree holders that the application for remittance would be considered after orders are received from the Indian Court for execution of the decrees.

The above facts have been narrated as they are essential for disposing of the issues that arise in this matter.

4. In order to examine the contentions raised on behalf of the judgment debtors, section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, needs to be looked into. Section 13 sets out a Foreign Judgment can be conclusive except in the following cases. They are:

(a) Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) Where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

(e) Where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

The objection therefore as to the conclusiveness of a judgment must be founded on one of the above.

5. Let me deal with the first contention namely whether the judgment passed on admission was not based on free consent. Whether consent was free or not is a mixed issue of fact and law. What is sought to be contended is that the decree not based on free consent is not binding. It cannot be said that this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. If consent was not free consent it also cannot be said that the judgment was obtained by fraud. At any rate fraud has not been pleaded. The very fact that the judgment debtors did not challenge the judgment and on the contrary made partial payments towards satisfaction of the decree must negate this contention of free consent. In so far as this Court is concerned, the Court will look at the judgment before it, and not whether the judgment is based on a erroneous view of the law and or on evidence. Unless the objection is covered by one of the exceptions, other issues cannot be gone into by this Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document