- (1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of a judgment-debtor and is directed against the order dated 17th March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge allowed an application for execution of a foreign award in terms of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure after overruling the objection of the judgment-debtor that as the decree did not mention any provision of interest, the execution application for realization of interest was not maintainable.
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the judgment-debtor has come up with the present appeal: The following facts are not in dispute: a) The decree-holder filed an execution application under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the order dated 12th March, 1998 passed by the Hon ble Justice Ferris of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, United Kingdom in Case No. 009020 of 1990 against the appellant. b) The said application was opposed by the appellant thereby alleging that the application as framed was not maintainable in the absence of the required certified copy of the order of the English Court sought to be executed in the execution application. It was further contended that from the perusal of the execution application, it appeared that the decree-holder, in fact, realized more than their decretal dues by selling the shares belonging to the appellant and the decree-holders were trying to realize something more than what was actually decreed. c) On 25th March, 2008, the said execution application was taken up for hearing when the appellant before us raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the said execution application on the ground of lack of proper certification of the order dated 12th March, 1998 passed by the English Court which is sought to be executed. d) By order dated July 2, 2008, a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the aforesaid objection of the appellant that there was no proper certification of the order dated 12th March, 1998 passed by the English Court and consequently, granted time of three months to the decreeholders to cure the defects by getting the endorsement as postulated by Order 71 Rule 13(4) of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1965. e) Pursuant to such direction, the decree-holder filed the order dated 12th March, 1998 along with copy of certificate. The appellant before us again raised objection that the true copy of the order dated 12th March, 1998 and the certificate submitted by the decree-holder were not the certified copy of the judgment under the appropriate laws of England which could be enforced in foreign countries. f) The said execution application was again taken up for hearing on January 15, 2009 and was concluded on January 21, 2009 and by order dated March 17, 2009, the learned Single Judge rejected the aforesaid contention of the appellant and directed that as regards the remaining assets mentioned in Annexures- O & P there should be an order in terms of prayer (a) of Column 10 of the Tabular Statement provided such assets are within the jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) Being dissatisfied, the judgment-debtor has come up with the present appeal: Mr. Mitra, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, at the very outset, contended that the purported certificate and the true copy of the order dated 12th March, 1998 which were submitted by the decree-holder in the execution application on 18th December, 2008 before the learned Single Judge did not comply with the requirement of the provisions contained in the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1965 applicable in England and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which is applicable in India. According to Mr. Mitra, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the certificate contemplated under Order 71 Rule 13(4) had been complied with and that the decree-holders were entitled to proceed with the execution application. Mr. Mitra next contended that the order dated 19th October, 1999 passed by Mr. Registrar Buckley imposing interest liability upon the judgment-debtors resulting in modification of the order dated March 12, 1998 passed by the Hon ble Justice Ferris of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Companies Court, United Kingdom was without jurisdiction, void and a nullity and as such, the decree-holders have no right to execute the said decree for realization of any amount from the judgment-debtor on account of interest. So far the first contention of Mr. Mitra is concerned, we do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Mitra that the certificate and the true copy of the order dated 12th March, 1998 submitted by the decree-holders did not comply with the requirement of the provision of law.;