Foreign decree enforcement by a bank falls within debt recovery jurisdiction, with execution to proceed before the Tribunal.

Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure treats a certified foreign decree filed for execution in India as if it were passed by the District Court, and the amount recoverable under such a decree can still constitute a bank debt under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Because that Act gives the Debt Recovery Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction over recovery of debts due to banks and overrides inconsistent procedures, execution of the foreign decree must be pursued before the Tribunal. The High Court cannot retain the execution application on the footing that Section 44A operates independently of the special recovery statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decree obtained by a bank from a foreign superior court, when sought to be executed in India, constitutes a debt under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and must be executed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal rather than retained in the High Court under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 44A creates a statutory fiction that a certified foreign decree filed for execution in India is to be executed as if it had been passed by the District Court. On that footing, the amount recoverable under such a decree falls within the broad definition of debt under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Once the claim is a debt due to a bank, Section 17 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain and decide the recovery application, and Section 22 empowers the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure and exercise powers beyond the Code of Civil Procedure, subject to natural justice. The Act is a special enactment with overriding effect under Section 34, and the correct approach is harmonious construction rather than treating Section 44A as excluding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The execution of the foreign decree by the bank falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and objections to execution could be examined by the Tribunal; the retention application was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: A bank seeking execution of a foreign decree must pursue recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the special recovery statute, and the High Court cannot retain the execution application on the footing that Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure governs it independently.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign decree executed in India as if passed by the District Court remains a recoverable debt of a bank under the special recovery statute, and the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide the execution application, subject to the powers conferred by that statute and the principles of natural justice.

---