S L BALI Vs. M S CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor from an order passed on his objections under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Executing Court. The decree which is being sought to be executed is for the recovery of Rs. 28,000 which was passed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi on 30th May, 1966. It appears that the parties had entered into a transaction at Hong Kong by which dollars had been sold to the judgment-debtor at the rate of Rs. 5.60 per dollar in place of the then official rate of Rs. 4.75 to the dollar. At the time of the passing of the decree the Subordinate Judge directed that the decree shall not be enforceable until and unless the plaintiff obtained permission as required by Section 21 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 from the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India. The decree-holder obtained the requisite permission from the Reserve Bank of India and applied for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor filed objeclions which were dismissed. This had led to this appeal. The objections of the judgment-debtor as far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

(2.) There were some other objections by the judgment-debtor concerning the effect of the judgment in the suit and the claim of the decree-holder to interest after the decree. The former question is really inter-connected with the two main objections mentioned already and the latter has been decided in favour of the judgmentdebtor. As regards the objections that now survive, it was held on the first question that the Executing Court could not again deal with, an objection which had been gone into and decided in the suit and, as regards the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India it was held that the same was valid. Against this decision the judgment-debtor has appealed on the grounds that the decision on both points is wrong. As regards the first contested question, namely the validity of the decree sought to be executed the question really turns upon the effect of Section 4(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The said sub-section runs as follows:

(3.) As regards the second substantive question, the contention of the appellant is that before granting permission the Reserve Bank should have heard the appellant. I find no force in this submission also. The provisions of Section 21 (3) (b) show that the decree-holder is required to apply to the Central Government or the Reserve Bank as the case may be for permission to execute the decree. As regards the steps to be taken by the Reserve Bank in respect of such an application, reference has to be made to Section 21 (3) (c). It will be observed from this provision that it is for the Reserve Bank to call upon the person entitled to the benefit of the judgment to produce such documents or to give such information as may be specified in the requirement. It is also for the Reserve Bank in such a case to call upon the decree- holder and the judgment-debtor to produce documents and to give information as may be required. It is conceivable that the Reserve Bank may require no documents and may call upon neither party or may call upon one or other party. The question as to which documents are required by the Reserve Bank is not a matter which is justiciable and clearly requires no quasi-judicial functions to be performed by the Reserve Bank. The transaction is probably viewed by the Reserve Bank from a completely different angle to that of the parties themselves. This was a transaction between Indian citizens concerning the sale of 6,500 U.S. dollars. Probably the Reserve Bank came to the conclusion that there was no point in refusing the permission. In my view, this was a matter entirely within the discretion of the Reserve Bank and did not effect the rights of either the judgment-debtor or the decree-holder. There was in my view, no provision which required the Reserve Bank to act in a quasi-judicial manner for deciding whether to give permission or not. The authorities sought to be cited on behalf of the appellant relating to the powers and duties of a quasi-judicial body have therefore no application to a case like the present and I need not refer to them. In my view the grant of permission does not require any hearing by the Reserve Bank. This view is supported by the judgment of the Madras High Court reported as A. R.. Ramiah V. Reserve Bank of India, 1970 I M.L.J. 1. (2). That decision was on a Writ Petition, wherein it was held that the power conferred on the Reserve Bank under Section 21(3)(b) and (c) was not a power coupled with 8 duty. The failure to give notice to the judgmentdebtor was held to be not violative of natural justice. I fully agree with that view and concur with the decision that-