Case: MESSER GRIESHEIM GmbH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE  DEUTSCHLAND GmbH) Vs. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD

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) (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, Queens 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 non-appearance 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 filed by the respondent on 17th January 2007, raising several objections which are available at its command as envisaged under Section 13 of the Code. Later a further objection was raised that the High Court of Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition in view of Section 44A of the Code.11. Learned Single Judge of the High Court overruled the preliminary objections and held that taking value of the execution of the money decree dated 7th February, 2006 of the English Court exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs, at given point of time, i.e., 27th April, 2006(the day on which the execution petition was filed), High Court of Delhi holds the exclusive jurisdiction of ordinary original civil jurisdiction and after meeting out other objections on merits decided the execution petition by a judgment dated 29th November, 2013. The operative part of the judgment are as under:-E.A. No. 653 of 200969. This is an application by the DH for a direction to the JD to deposit the original title deeds of Sahibabad property.70. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and a direction is issued to the JD to deposit the original title deeds of the property, land measuring 18774 sq. yds. At 8/7, Site-IV, Sahibabad, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad in the Court within two weeks, and when so deposited, it shall be kept in a sealed cover by the Court. At the time of filing the original title deeds, the JD will deliver to the learned counsel for the DH a photocopy thereof.EA No. 654 of 200971. By this application, the DH seeks a clarification that the order dated 3rd November, 2009 passed by the Court releasing the lien on the property at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh should be made conditional upon the Managing Director (MD) or any other competent director of the JD furnishing a written undertaking that the Ghaziabad property is free from all encumbrances and further than no written consent from the State Bank of India (SBI) under Clause 11 of the agreement for hypothecation of goods and assets dated 24th November, 2008 is required.72. Despite notice having been served in both these applications way back on 20th November 2009, no reply has been filed to this application.73. Consequently, the application is allowed and a direction is issued to the MD/authorized Director of the JD to file an affidavit in this Court within two weeks clarifying (a) that the property at Sahibabad, Ghaziabad is free from all encumbrances or charge as on the date of the order dated 3rd November, 2009; (b) that no written consent from the SBI under Clause 11 of the Agreement for hypothecation of the goods and assets dated 24th November, 2008 is required for enforcing the said order vis-à-vis the said Sahibabad property in terms of the statement made by the JD to the Court on 27th April, 2006 and (c ) that, as on date, there is no lien/charge etc. created on the Sahibabad property.74. The application is disposed of.12. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th November, 2013 was assailed by the respondent- judgment debtor before the Division Bench of the High Court.13. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances, considered it appropriate to examine the singular issue confining it to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in executing the money decree dated 7th February, 2006 of the English Court, in exercise of its original jurisdiction in terms of Section 44A of the Code and after the parties being heard, arrived at the conclusion that Section 44A is an independent right conferred on a foreign decree holder for enforcement of its decree in India. It is a fresh cause of action and has no co-relation with jurisdictional issues. The scheme of Section 44A of the Code is alien to the scheme of domestic execution as provided under Section 39(3) of the Code and finally held that the High Court of Delhi, not being a District Court, in terms of Section 44A of the Code, is not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain execution petition and directed to be transferred to the Court of District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property sought to be attached is situated for being dealt with in accordance with law, which is a subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.

Reasoning: 23. It is not disputed that so far as the expression superior Court of any reciprocating territory as defined under Section 44A of the Code is concerned, the judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 has been passed by the notified superior Court of the reciprocating territory, namely, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the meaning of Section 44A of the Code vide notification dated 1st March, 1953 issued by the Ministry of Law, thus it leaves no doubt that the decree of the High Court of England would be considered to be a decree of superior Court of a reciprocating territory.27. The ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court is always exercised, based on pecuniary limits. It would be impossible to read into Section 44A of the Code that even though the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court is restricted, still for the purpose of execution of a foreign decree, it becomes the District Court in respect to those matters which fall within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court and the expression district defined under Section 2(4) of the Code will have to be given its true effect. To read the 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 the Act 1966.28. It leaves no manner of doubt that once the pecuniary jurisdiction at the given point of time exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs as notified by the High Court under Section 5(2) of the 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 the High Court of Delhi which holds its exclusive jurisdiction as ordinary original civil jurisdiction to execute a foreign decree under Section 44A of the Code and it goes without saying that execution always is in continuation of the proceedings.29. Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act 1918, of which the Division Bench has put its emphasis, which is applicable to Delhi, the Court of District Judge would be the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. Under Section 5(1) of the Act 1966, the High Court of Delhi exercises all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as was exercisable by the High Court of Punjab in the Union Territory of Delhi. Then, there is Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 which starts with a non-obstante clause which empowers the High Court of Delhi to exercise its ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit where the pecuniary value exceeds, as being notified by the competent authority and thus, the High Court of Delhi indeed holds original civil jurisdiction in a suit where the value exceeds its pecuniary limits and if Section 24 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is read with Section 5(2) of the Act 1966, it is quite clear that certain jurisdiction has been taken away from the District Court and conferred with the High Court of Delhi and this original civil jurisdiction is only in respect to the suits where the pecuniary limit exceeds as notified by the authority under Section 5(2) of the Act 1966 and that would make the High Court of Delhi, the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction, for all practical purposes.30. 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.