Page 31 - Insurance Times June 2024

44-A CPC - Execution of decrees passed by courts in No. 2 who is alleged to have committed breach of
reciprocating territory. contract in London and hence, the Admiralty Court's
112(2) CPC - Nothing herein contained applies to any jurisdiction was invoked in England because the suit filed
matter of criminal or admiralty or vice-admiralty by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 was
pertaining to the breach of salvage contract regarding
jurisdiction, or to appeals from orders and decrees of
respondent No. 2's ship M.V. Al Tabish (AL QUAMAR)
Prize Courts.
which, on the date of the filing of the suit in English
2. In the alternative, it was contended that even assuming Admiralty Court, allegedly belonged to respondent
that the said provision applies on the facts of the present No.2.
case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court is not a competent
Court which can entertain such execution proceedings 4. According to Mr. P Chidambaram, learned senior
under Section 44-A of the CPC. Counsel for the appellant, as no part of cause of action
in this case had arisen in India and, especially within the
local territorial limits of the Andhra Pradesh High' Court,
1. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior Counsel for the
even though it may be acting as an Admiralty Court such
appellant, was prima facie right when he contended
that the word "herein" is of wide import and may a suit could not have been filed by respondent No. 1
personally against respondent No. 2 in the Andhra
exclude the gamut of the entire Civil Procedure Code
including Section 44-A so far as admiralty or vice- Pradesh High Court. If that is so, the Andhra Pradesh
admiralty jurisdiction is concerned. However, it is High Court is not competent to execute such a decree
pertinent to note that while Sub-section (1) of Section even by resorting to the legal fiction created by Section
112 provides for excluding the entire Code in connection 44-A by treating such a foreign decree of English
with the topics covered by Sub-clauses (a) & (b) of Sub- Admiralty Court as if it was a decree passed by the
Andhra Pradesh Admiralty Court.
section (1) thereof pertaining to powers of the Supreme
Court in appeals. Sub-section (2) of Section 112
In order to buttress this contention Mr. P. Chidambaram,
conspicuously does not contain the same phraseology
i.e. "nothing contained in this Code" instead it uses the learned senior Counsel for the appellant, gave an extreme
phraseology "nothing herein contained", meaning example. He placed a hypothetical illustration for our
thereby, nothing contained in the sub-topic "appeals to consideration. An English national files a suit against another
the Supreme Court" would apply to admiralty or vice- English national for the breach of contract regarding the
admiralty jurisdiction amongst others and nothing purchase of a movable or immovable property in England.
more. A competent English Court passes a decree at common law
by way of damages for breach of contract by the foreign
2. However, Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior Counsel
defendant and in favour of foreign plaintiff.
for the appellant, submitted that even if that is so, on
a combined reading of Section 44-A and Section 39 Sub- If both the decree-holder as well as the judgment-debtor
sections (1) and (3) of the CPC, it must be held that happen to take a trip to India as tourists and if the English
before such execution proceedings can be entertained decree-holder tourist finds his English judgments-debtor to
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in exercise of its be possessed of a costly wrist-watch or other costly movable
admiralty jurisdiction as successor to the Chartered High property in Agra; when both of them are on a sight-seeing
Court of Madras, it must be shown that it was a tour of Taj Mahal at Agra can execution of such a foreign
competent Court which could have entertained such a
decree be enforced in the District Court at Agra?
suit of respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2
seeking decree in personam against it.
Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior Counsel for the
3. He submitted that neither the foreign decree-holder appellant, posed this question to himself. He submitted that
respondent No.1 nor foreign judgment-debtor a superficial reading of Section 44-A may entitle such a
respondent No. 2 are Indian nationals. None of them foreign national English decree-holder armed with certified
has any connection with India as residents or having copy of the decree to file execution proceedings for
any immovable property in India and no part of cause recovering his money claim against the foreign judgment-
of action has also arisen in India in favour of respondent debtor in the District Court at Agra. He submitted that such
No. 1 against respondent No. 2. The foreign decree of execution petition would be travesty of justice and would
Appellate Court is a personal decree against respondent reflect an absurd situation which cannot be countenanced

The Insurance Times June 2024 29