Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Messer Griesheim Gmbh (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) - Appellants
Versus
Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 521 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 22539 of 2014)
Decided on : 28-01-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 44A – Delhi High Court Act, 1966 – Section 5 – Execution of money decree of a foreign Court – Ordinary original civil jurisdiction of High Court is always exercised, based on pecuniary limits – It would be impossible to read into Section 44A of Code that even though pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court is restricted, still for the purpose of execution of a foreign decree, it becomes District Court in respect to those matters which fall within ordinary original civil jurisdiction of High Court and expression “district” defined under Section 2(4) Code will have to be given its true effect – To read expression “District Court” in Section 44A for execution of foreign decree, it will be construed to be a Court holding ordinary original civil jurisdiction in terms of its pecuniary limits as being notified under Section 5(2) of Act 1966 – Once pecuniary jurisdiction at the given point of time exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs as notified by High Court under Section 5(2) of Act 1966 (later vide notification dated 10th August, 2015 (w.e.f. 26th October, 2015) pecuniary limits has been revised to Rs.2 Crores), it is High Court of Delhi which holds its exclusive jurisdiction as ordinary original civil jurisdiction to execute a foreign decree under Section 44A of Code – Execution always is in continuation of proceedings – Certain jurisdiction has been taken away from District Court and conferred with High Court of Delhi and this original civil jurisdiction is only in respect to suits where pecuniary limit exceeds as notified by authority under Section 5(2) of Act 1966 and that would make High Court of Delhi, principal Court of original civil jurisdiction, for all practical purposes. (Paras 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Appellant/decree holder has challenged the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 1st July, 2014 relegating to file a petition for execution of a money decree dated 7th February, 2006(in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs) of a foreign Court indisputedly notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory before the District Court in view of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Question that emerges for our consideration is whether High Court of Delhi in exercise of its original jurisdiction is a competent Court to entertain a petition for executing a money decree (in excess of Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of reciprocating territory under Section 44A of Code.
Findings of Court:
This being an old matter where foreign decree dated 7th February, 2006 could not have been executed for almost 16 years by this time, Division Bench may take up the matter on priority and decide the same on its own merits as expeditiously as possible keeping in view its long awaiting execution in accordance with law, but in no case later than four months.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant/decree holder has challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 1st July, 2014 relegating to file a petition for execution of a money decree dated 7th February, 2006(in excess of Rs. 20 lakhs) of a foreign Court indisputedly notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory before the District Court in view of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter being referred to as the “Code”).
3. It is an old saying that the difficulties of the litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. The evil was noticed as far back in 1872 by the Privy Council in relation to the difficulties faced by the decree holder in execution of the decree (MIA p.612) 1[General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-72) 14 MIA 605 : 20 ER 912]. After more than a century, there has been no improvement and still the decree holder faces the same problem what was being faced in the past. A litigant coming to Court seeking relief is not interested in receiving a paper decree when he succeeds in establishing his case. What he primarily wants from the Court of Justice is the relief and if it is a money decree, he wants that money what he is entitled for in terms of the decree, must be satisfied by the judgment debtor at the earliest possible without fail keeping in view the reasonable restrictions/rights which are available to the judgment debtor under the provisions of the statute or the code, as the case may be.
4. Instant case is the live illustration before us where the decree holder was able to get a money decree of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory way back on 7th February, 2006 and after 16 years have been rolled by, still the screen is smokey and not clear as to which is the forum where he could approach for execution of a decree.
5. The brief facts culled out from the record are that the appellant initiated proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, United Kingdom(“English Court”) which is a superior Court of a reciprocating territory(namely, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island) notified under Section 44A of the Code vide Notification No. SRO 399 dated 1st March, 1953 issued by the Ministry of Law as amended by GSR 201 dated 13th March, 1958.
6. Earlier, a default decree was passed due to nonappearance of the respondent/judgment debtor in UK Court on 6th February, 2003. The appellant issued a winding up notice to the respondent, who objected the same as the judgment dated 6th February, 2003 was a default decree. To meet the objection raised by the respondent, the appellant approached the English Court and sought setting aside of the default decree and prayed for passing a decree on merits of the case. At this juncture, the respondent entered appearance and the English Court by a judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 granted a money decree for a principal sum of US $ 5,824,564.74.
7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7th February 2006 and that has attained finality.
8. The total decretal amount indisputedly on the date of filing of the execution petition before the Delhi High Court on 27th April, 2006 was exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs which was the pecuniary limits of the Delhi High Court in terms of Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966(hereinafter being referred to as “Act 1966”) which was later enhanced to Rs.2 crores in the year 2015, to entertain the execution petition as the principal Court of original jurisdiction.
9. It has been alleged by the appellant that the decretal amount, if it is taken at the face value as on 20th January, 2022, may come to approximately Rs. 99 crores.
10. The appellant filed a petition for execution of money decree in the High Court of Delhi on 27th April, 2006. A reply to the execution petition was fi
Court emphasized that an administrative order cannot bar access to the court; both the High Court and District Courts hold concurrent jurisdiction for executing decrees below Rs. 2 crores.
Execution under CPC Section 44A for reciprocating territory decrees involves summary Section 13 inquiry; framing issues and evidence allowed only in exceptional circumstances like doubts on service, ....
The execution of foreign decrees from reciprocating territories requires a swift process; however, exceptional circumstances may necessitate the framing of issues and consideration of evidence in det....
The enforcement of an arbitral award can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed, without requiring a transfer of decree from the court with jurisdiction over the arbitr....
The Court ruled that under Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, execution of a money decree cannot be carried out on properties beyond the territorial limits of the Court.
“Judgment” as per Section 2(9) of CPC means statement given by Judge on grounds of a decree or order.
Point of Law : Crux of the dispute revolves around question of jurisdiction of execution court to execute a decree passed by it, when said court was having territorial jurisdiction and subsequently j....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
