MOOSA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a foreign judgment conclusive between the parties where it has not been given on the merits of the case and the proceedings therein are opposed to natural justice This is the question frequently asked by the Gulf returnees in the State of Kerala when confronted with the steps by the bank after their business had floundered abroad. The respondent Bank instituted Case No. 2173/90 on the file of the Abu Dhabi Court against the loanees who included the revision petitioners. The case was decreed for a sum of Dirhams 199728.21 (approximately about Rs. 20 lakhs) with interest thereon at 9% per annum. The Bank thereafter filed a suit as O.S. No. 43/1993 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thalassery. The court below has by the order impugned held that the foreign judgment is conclusive between the parties. Resultantly the suit was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal since the plaint claim exceeded a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The order holding the foreign judgment as conclusive is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The bank on the other hand maintained that the foreign judgment though passed ex parte is nevertheless one given on the merits of the case. It was also contended that the loanees were put on notice by substituted service as per the Civil Procedures Law applicable in the foreign country. The Bank pointed out that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the conclusiveness of me foreign judgment based on which the suit is filed. It is only after rendering such a finding by the civil court can the suit be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Heavy reliance was placed on the judgment in P.K. Shahal Hassan Musaliyar v. Bank of Baroda and others, 2007 4 KerLT 90. The Bank reiterated that the court below has exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law and that the order is not vitiated by material irregularity.

(3.) I have heard Mr. B. Krishnan, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioners who has a wealth of experience in the moffusil courts. I have also heard Mr. Devan Ramachandran, Advocate on behalf of the Bank.