Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, M/s. Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Nashik, which rejected the Petitioner's application for declaration that the execution proceeding filed by the Respondents (original Plaintiffs) was not maintainable. The Respondents had obtained an order from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom on 19th October, 2006, imposing costs of £12,429.75 (equivalent to ₹10,16,753.55) with interest at 8% per annum against the Petitioner. The Respondents filed Special (Civil) Darkhast No.1 of 2007 before the District Court at Nashik for execution of the foreign order. The Petitioner filed an application (Exhibit 1) contending that the execution petition was not maintainable as the foreign order was merely a costs order and not a judgment or decree under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The District Court rejected the application, holding that the foreign order was a judgment and decree and that the execution petition was maintainable. The High Court, in its analysis, examined the definition of 'judgment' under Section 44A CPC and the principles governing execution of foreign judgments. The court held that the order imposing costs is a judgment and decree, and the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The court also held that the District Court at Nashik had jurisdiction as the judgment debtor resides and carries on business within its jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the District Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Foreign Judgment - Section 44A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether an order of a foreign court imposing costs is a 'judgment' under Section 44A CPC. The court held that the order imposing costs is a judgment and decree, and the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The execution petition was held maintainable. (Paras 5-28)
B) Civil Procedure - Executing Court's Jurisdiction - Section 44A CPC - The court examined whether the District Court at Nashik had jurisdiction to execute the foreign judgment. The court held that since the judgment debtor resides and carries on business within the jurisdiction of the District Court at Nashik, the execution petition is maintainable. (Paras 5-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom imposing costs is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and whether the execution petition filed by the Respondents is maintainable before the District Court at Nashik.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the learned District Judge-2, Nashik dated 15th April, 2011, and holding that the execution petition is maintainable and the foreign judgment is executable before the District Court at Nashik.
Law Points
- Foreign judgment imposing costs is a decree
- Section 44A CPC
- executing court cannot go behind decree
- maintainability of execution petition
- jurisdiction of executing court
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (04) 84
Civil Revision Application No.680 of 2011
Mrs. Jui Nerurkar i/b Mr. P.S. Dani for the Petitioner, Mr. C.T. Chandratre for the Respondents
M/s. Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Celem S.A. and Celem Passive Components Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging the order of the District Court rejecting the Petitioner's application for declaration that the execution petition filed by the Respondents is not maintainable.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Nashik, and to dismiss the execution petition filed by the Respondents.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner contended that the foreign court's order imposing costs was not a judgment or decree under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore the execution petition was not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
The learned District Judge-2, Nashik, by order dated 15th April, 2011, rejected the Petitioner's application (Exhibit 1) and held that the execution petition is maintainable and the foreign judgment is executable before the District Court at Nashik.
Issues
Whether the order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom imposing costs is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Whether the execution petition filed by the Respondents is maintainable before the District Court at Nashik?
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the foreign court's order was merely a costs order and not a judgment or decree, and therefore not executable under Section 44A CPC.
The Respondents argued that the order imposing costs is a judgment and decree, and the execution petition is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
The order of a foreign court imposing costs is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is executable as a decree. The executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Civil Revision Application, the Defendant – Judgment Debtor challenges the order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge2, Nashik below Exhibit 1 in Special (Civil) Darkhast no.1 of 2007, rejecting the Petitioner’s Application for declaration that the recovery proceeding filed by the Respondents – original Plaintiffs be disposed off/dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or even otherwise on facts and holding that the execution proceeding filed by Respondents being maintainable and the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court is executable before District Court at Nashik.
Procedural History
The Respondents filed a suit in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom. The Petitioner challenged jurisdiction, which was rejected by order dated 19th October, 2006, imposing costs. The Respondents filed Special (Civil) Darkhast No.1 of 2007 before the District Court at Nashik for execution. The Petitioner filed Exhibit 1 on 1st March, 2008 seeking dismissal of the execution petition. The District Court rejected the application on 15th April, 2011. The Petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Application in the High Court of Bombay.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 44A
