Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing a chamber summons taken out by the decree holder (respondent) for leave to execute a foreign judgment against the judgment debtor (appellant). The foreign judgment was a decree for costs passed by the High Court of Justice of the U.K., Queen's Bench Division, in Case No.1990-K-528, read with a final costs certificate dated 11 November 2004 and an additional certificate dated 17 January 2005. The decree holder also held a certificate under Section 10 of the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933. The original plaintiff had filed the case in the U.K. for release of a fund and damages. On 25 February 1993, a consent order was passed entering judgment against the defendant for failure to serve a defence. The assessment of damages was tried, and on 22 January 1999, a decree was passed assessing damages at nil and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs. The costs were subsequently taxed and certified. The decree holder sought execution of the costs decree in India. The judgment debtor opposed execution on grounds that the foreign judgment was not a final and conclusive judgment, was obtained by fraud, was contrary to natural justice, and was opposed to public policy. The Single Judge allowed the chamber summons, holding that the foreign judgment was enforceable. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the foreign judgment for costs was a money decree enforceable under the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933. The court rejected the judgment debtor's arguments on fraud, natural justice, and public policy, finding that the foreign court had jurisdiction, the judgment was not obtained by fraud, and the judgment debtor had notice and opportunity to be heard. The court also held that the judgment was final and conclusive and not contrary to public policy.
Headnote
A) Execution of Foreign Judgment - Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933 - Section 13 CPC - Res Judicata - The court held that a foreign judgment for costs, being a money decree, is enforceable in India under the Act. The judgment debtor's challenge on grounds of fraud, want of natural justice, and public policy was rejected as the foreign court had jurisdiction and the judgment was not obtained by fraud. (Paras 1-16) B) Fraud - Foreign Judgment - Res Judicata - The court held that the allegation of fraud must be extrinsic to the matter adjudicated and not merely a re-agitation of issues already decided. The judgment debtor failed to establish any fraud in the procurement of the foreign judgment. (Paras 17-25) C) Natural Justice - Foreign Judgment - Public Policy - The court held that the foreign judgment was not contrary to natural justice as the judgment debtor had notice and opportunity to be heard. The decree was not opposed to public policy as it was a simple money decree for costs. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a foreign judgment for costs, which is a money decree, can be executed in India under the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, and whether the judgment debtor can resist execution on grounds of fraud, want of natural justice, or public policy.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge allowing the chamber summons for execution of the foreign judgment was upheld.
Law Points
- Execution of foreign judgment
- Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act
- 1933
- Section 13 CPC
- res judicata
- fraud
- public policy
- natural justice
