JUDEGMENT SUMMARY:
M/s Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) vs Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
28th January2022
JUDGES:
A. Rastogi, J
A.S. Oka, J.
PARTIES:
M/s Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) (Appellant)
Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court held that High Courts having original civil jurisdiction can execute foreign judgments under Section 44A of CPC. The Supreme Court while setting aside an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the High Court could exercise its ordinary original civil jurisdiction for executing a foreign judgment.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The Privy Council had addressed the difficulties faced by the decree holder in carrying out the decree as early as in 1872. The litigants in the court of Justice sought for the money entitled to them in the decree from the Judgement Debtor (JD) rather than a paper decree on succeeding in establishing the case.
2. The proceeding of the case was initiated before the English Court which is a superior Court of United Kingdom in 1953. In 2003, a default decree was passed due to the non-appearance of JD.
3. The appellant had issued a winding up notice which was objected by the JD. The objection was met in the English Court which resulted in setting aside of the default decree. In February of 2006,the appellant obtained a money decree from an English Court and the judgment had attained finality.
4. Initially, the decretal amount exceeded twenty lakh rupees which enhanced to two crores rupees in 2015. The appellant had alleged that decretal amount might come to approximately Rs. 99 crores in 2022.
5. The appellant had filled for execution of money decree in April of 2006 before the Delhi High Court which was objected on the grounds of Section 13 and 44A of CPC by the JD. The Single Judge overruled the objection and directed the following to the JD:
a. To deposit the original title deeds of the property
b. To file an affidavit in the Court within 2 weeks clarifying three things-
i. The property was free from all encumbrances or charge,
ii. No written consent from SBI was required for enforcing the said order and
iii. No lien/charge was created on the property.
6. The JD assailed the aforesaid judgement by filing petition before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The Bench had held that the Court not being a District Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear an execution petition under Section 44A of CPC. The case was directed to be transferred to the Court of District Judge having jurisdiction over the property.
7. The appellant had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the Supreme Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Delhi High Court Act, 1966
- Section 5(2)- The High Court of Delhi has ordinary original civil jurisdiction in suits where the value exceeds five lakhs’ rupees without any exception in the territories which are a part of the Union territory of Delhi.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 2(4)- Defines District.
- Section 13- Provides that Indian Court shall not enforce a foreign judgement unless it is directed by a competent court. Further, lays down the basic rules all decrees have to abide by.
- Section 44A- Provides for the procedure for carrying out decrees issued by reciprocating territory's courts.
ISSUES
The issue identified by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court of Delhi while exercising its original jurisdiction is competent to hear a petition for executing a money decree (exceeding Rs.20 lakhs) of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- The jurisdiction for execution of a foreign Courts decree of a reciprocating territory was vested with the High Court of Delhi with the condition that the money decree exceeds the pecuniary limits. The High Court of Delhi was even vested with the ordinary original civil jurisdiction subjected to the pecuniary limits. Section 44A of the CPC provided that if a certified copy of a decree of any superior Court of any reciprocating territory is filed in a District Court, the decree should be executed in India as though passed by a District Court.
- For the purpose of carrying out a foreign decree, the High Court of Delhi was transformed into a District Court, as the expression district as defined in Section 2(4) of the CPC was given effect. As per Section 5(2) of Delhi High Court Act, there might more than one Court with original jurisdiction as principal civil Court concurrently subjected to their pecuniary limits. In such cases, if the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeded what was notified under the Act, the High Court of Delhi should be considered as the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction.
- Section 5(2) of Delhi High Court Act empowered the High Court of Delhi to exercise its ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit where the pecuniary value exceeded the notified limit.When the pecuniary jurisdiction had exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs and it was revised to Rs.2 crores, the High Court of Delhi had the exclusive jurisdiction as ordinary original civil jurisdiction to execute a foreign decree under Section 44A of the Code. The execution of money decree was in continuation of the proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. It held that High Courts with original Civil Jurisdiction can execute foreign decrees under Section 44A of CPC. The foreign decree being an old matter which had not been executed for almost 16 years, the Supreme Court advised the Division Bench to take up the matter on priority and decide it based on its own merits within 4 months.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
