High Courts With Original Civil Jurisdiction Can Also Execute Foreign Decrees Under Section 44A of CPC : Supreme Court

A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that High Courts have no jurisdiction to execute foreign decrees under Section 44A even when it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court, as Section 44A is an independent provision distinct from execution of domestic decrees.

The judgment authored by Justice Rastogi, while setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, held :

"The Division Bench has proceeded on the basis of the expression "District Court", as being referred under Section 44A of the Code but it has not taken into consideration the other relevant provisions of which a reference has been made by us while coming to the conclusion that the expression "District" as defined under Section 2(4) of the Code only lays down the limits of the jurisdiction of the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and that includes the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court and once the pecuniary jurisdiction exceeds as being notified under the relevant statute, the jurisdiction vests exclusively with the High Court as an ordinary original civil jurisdiction for execution of a foreign decree under Section 44A subject to the just objections which are available to the parties/judgment debtor as envisaged under Section 13 of the Code".

Factual Background

The appellant initiated proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, United Kingdom, which is notified as a superior Court of a reciprocating territory by the Central Government under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").

Section 44A(1) reads as under -

"44A. Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory.--(1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court."

Eventually a money decree amounting to US $ 5,824,567.74 was passed in favour of the appellant. Once the decree attained finality, execution petition was filed before the Delhi High Court in 2006 as the decretal amount exceeded Rs. 20 lakh, which was then the pecuniary limits of the original civil jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court was objected to in terms of Section 44A. Considering the pecuniary limit, the Single Judge decided that High Court had jurisdiction, but on appeal it was reversed by the Division Bench.

Contentions raised by the appellant

Senior Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the value of the money decree exceeded the then pecuniary limits of the Delhi High Court as notified under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 ("1966 Act"). He further contended that in cities like Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai, where there exists split jurisdiction based on pecuniary value and the High Courts in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction is also competent to execute decrees, execution under S. 44A can be carried out by the High Court.

Contentions raised by the respondent

Senior Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that Section 44A is an independent right conferred on a foreign decree holder for enforcement in India, which is distinct from domestic execution as elucidated in Section 39(3). Under Section 38 a decree may be executed by the Court which passed the decree or Court of competent jurisdiction to which it is transferred for execution. It was also asserted that when Section 44A categorically identifies the "District Court" as the executing court for foreign decrees, the pecuniary competence would not be relevant. Moreover, it was pointed out that in Section 5(2) of the 1996 Act which stated, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds Rupees twenty lakhs, the expression 'suit' does not include execution proceedings.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

The Court referred to the definition of 'district' provided in Section 2(4) of the CPC, which reads as under -

""district" means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "District Court"), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court;"

Conjointly reading Sections 2(4) and 44A, the Court noted that it includes local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. Though all High Courts do not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the Court opined, those that do are competent to exercise power for execution of decrees including foreign decrees under Section 44A. The Court emphasised that the execution which would otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court based on the pecuniary limit notified under Section 5(2), cannot be executed by a Civil Court just because Section 44A mentions "District Court".

Case Name: M/s. Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95

Case No. and Date: Civil Appeal No. 521 of 2022 | 28 Jan 2022

Corum: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka

Counsel for the Appellant: Senior Advocate, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Advocate-on-Record Ms. Mohna M. Lal.

Counsel for the Respondent: Senior Advocate Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate-on-Record Ms. Aruna Gupta.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment