A foreign judgment is enforceable in India if it is given on merits, not obtained by fraud, not opposed to natural justice, and the court that passed the judgment had competent jurisdiction.

( 1 ) M/s. Formosa Plastic Corporation of U. S. A. (for short formosa ) had filed a suit for recovery of US $ 19,935,539. 38 on account of price of goods sold and delivered against M/s. Kunstoplast of America Inc. (for short "koa ) as principal debtor and Ashok Kumar Chauhan (for short "chauhan ) as guarantor/ surety in the District Court at Texas, USA. Chauhan had executed guarantee for the liability of KOA on 19th October, 1993. Subsequently, on March 25,1994 the parties have further entered into a letter agreement which further defined their relationship whereby Formosa was to supply certain quantities of Resin on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Chauhan had again executed personal guarantee dated 18th March, 1994. Dues remained unpaid. On February 20,1995 Formosa filed a suit against KOA and Chauhan. Both were duly served but they failed to file response and a default judgment was given. Both filed joint motion for new trial. Motion of KOA was disallowed and Chauhan s was allowed. Chauhan disputed the claim and also filed a counter-claim. Counter-claim of Chauhan was separated and his objections were dismissed and a decree was passed. Appeal filed before the Appellate Court of Texas has been dismissed on 11th June, 1998.

( 2 ) IN the meantime, Formosa sought execution of the decree before the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, London against Chauhan. Chauhan filed objections which were dismissed and a judgment/decree was passed on 24th October, 1997 by the High Court. Appeal filed was subsequently dismissed by the Appellate Court on 6. 4. 98.

( 3 ) IN the meantime, the High Court of Justice, London vide order dated 30. 1. 1998 gave leave to Formosa to enforce the decree passed on 24. 10. 1997 in India to the extent of seeking relief in the nature of Mareva relief.

( 4 ) ON the basis of judgment dated 24. 10. 1997 Formosa filed an application before this Court impleading Chauhan, his wife, son and brother as respondents No. 1 to 4 and sought injunction for restraining the latter from transferring by sale or otherwise certain properties including Bank accounts, trust properties and some immovable properties alleging that those properties/assets belonged to Chauhan and had been acquried fraudulently in the names of respondents 2 to 4 or other trusts.

( 5 ) ON this application vide orders dated February 17, 1998 and February 19, 1998 passed by this Court, respondents were restrained from alienating, disposing of or otherwise encumbering any of those properties. Chauhan has filed objections against these orders, and has challenged the enforceability of the judgment passed by the High Court of Justice, London inter alia on the grounds, (i) that the judgment was not given on merits; (ii) judgment had been obtained by fraud; (iii) it was in violation of natural justice; and (iv) there is no judgment/decree passed against respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and as such no injunction could be passed against them restraining them from transferring their properties; and (v) remedy of Mareva injunction could be obtained by filing a suit and not in execution proceedings.

( 6 ) I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties who have addressed arguments at length.

( 7 ) FIRST contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the objector is that there is no reciprocity arrangement with the American Courts and as such the decree passed by Texas Court is not executable in India; also that the judgment of that Court was not given on merit, and for these reasons the judgment of the English Court is also not executable in India. He has relied on D. T. Keymer v. D. Visvanathan Reddi, AIR 1916 PC 121.

( 8 ) THIS is disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant who has contended that the judgment of the Texas and also of the English Court has been given on merit and the judgment of the English Court is enforceable in India under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "code") read with Section 13 of t