1972 (4) TMI 106 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code, to the decree of the Singapore High Court.
2. Competence of the Singapore High Court to pass a decree against the respondent.
3. Whether the decree was passed on merits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code, to the decree of the Singapore High Court:

The Court examined whether Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code, applied to the decree passed by the Singapore High Court. Section 44-A(1) states that a certified copy of a decree of any Superior Court of a reciprocating territory may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court. The term "reciprocating territory" is defined in Explanation 1 of Section 44-A, and the Central Government had issued a notification on 17th June 1968, declaring the Republic of Singapore as a reciprocating territory. The Court noted that the notification dated 1st September 1955, which was in force when the decree was passed on 30th July 1966, recognized Singapore as a reciprocating territory. Thus, Section 44-A(1) was applicable to the execution of the decree passed by the Singapore High Court.

2. Competence of the Singapore High Court to pass a decree against the respondent:

The respondent contended that he never submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court and that he was not a resident of Singapore. The Court considered the relevant facts, including the partnership business carried out in Singapore by a Power of Attorney Agent on behalf of the firm. The respondent argued that he was not a subject of the Singapore Government and had never resided in Singapore. The Court found that the respondent did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts and that the Singapore Court was not competent to pass a judgment against him. The Court noted that the Power of Attorney executed by the appellant did not bind the respondent, and the suits filed by the Power of Attorney Agent were not on behalf of the partnership. Thus, the respondent could not be said to have subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts.

3. Whether the decree was passed on merits:

The Court examined whether the ex parte decree passed by the Singapore High Court was given on the merits of the case. Under Section 13(b), Civil Procedure Code, a foreign judgment is not conclusive if it has not been given on the merits of the case. The Court noted that the decree was passed solely due to the default of appearance by the respondent and without any trial or evidence. The Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Mahomed Kassim and Co. v. Seeni Fakir Bin Ahmed, which held that a judgment given on default of appearance without any trial or evidence is not a judgment on merits. The Court concluded that the decree passed by the Singapore High Court was not given on merits and, therefore, could not be executed under Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge that the decree passed by the Singapore High Court could not be executed in India. The Court held that the respondent did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts and that the decree was not given on merits. The appeal was dismissed with costs.