Enforcement of Foreign Decrees / Judgement in India

This Article aims to study in detail the enforceability of foreign Judgements/decrees passed by a foreign court and the scope of Sec. 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

With the advent of globalization and with India poised as a major international and global player in the world economy, it is apposite to consider the law concerning enforcement of foreign judgments in India. In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement rendered in another (“foreign”) jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement. The “recognition” of a foreign judgment occurs when the court of one country or jurisdiction accepts a judicial decision made by the courts of another “foreign” country or jurisdiction, and issues a judgment in substantially identical terms without rehearing the substance of the original lawsuit.

Recognition will be generally denied if the judgment is substantively incompatible with basic legal principles in the recognizing country.

However, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has defined Foreign Court and Foreign Judgements as :-

Section 2 of the CPC, 1908

(5) “foreign Court” means a Court situate outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government;

(6) “foreign judgment” means the judgment of a foreign Court;

In other words, a foreign judgment means an adjudication by a foreign court on a matter before it.


A foreign judgment can be enforced in India in one of two ways:

  1. Firstly by filing an Execution Petition under Section 44A of the CPC (in case the conditions specified therein are fulfilled).

In other words – Judgments from Courts in “reciprocating territories” can be enforced directly by filing before an Indian Court an Execution Decree.

  1. Secondly by filing a suit upon the foreign judgment /decree

In other words – Judgments from “non-reciprocating territories,” such as the United States, can be enforced only by filing a law suit in an Indian Court for a Judgment based on the foreign judgment. The foreign judgment is considered evidentiary. The time limit to file such a law suit in India is within three years of the foreign judgment.

However, “reciprocating territory” is defined in explanation 1 to Section 44A of India’s Civil Procedure Code as:

Any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as a reciprocating territory.”


The List of the Reciprocating Territories as per the Provisions of Section 44 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is as under :

  1. United Kingdom
  2. Singapore
  3. Bangladesh
  4. UAE
  5. Malaysia
  6. Trinidad & Tobago
  7. New Zealand
  8. The Cook Islands (including Niue)and The Trust Territories of Western Samoa
  9. Hong Kong
  10. Papua and New Guinea
  11. Fiji
  12. Aden.


44A. Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory.

(1) Where a certified copy of decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in [India] as if it had been passed by the District Court.

(2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior Court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.

(3) The provisions of section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13.

“The Supreme Court held in the case of Moloji Nar Singh Rao vs Shankar Saran AIR 1962 SC 1737 that a foreign judgment which does not arise from the order of a superior court of a reciprocating territory cannot be executed in India. It ruled that a fresh suit will have to be filed in India on the basis of the foreign judgement.”

Therefore Under S. 44A of the CPC, a decree of any of the Superior Courts of any reciprocating territory are executable as a decree passed by the domestic Court. In case the decree does not pertain to a reciprocating territory or a superior Court of a reciprocating territory, as notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the decree is not directly executable in India and a fresh suit will have to be filed in India on the basis of such a decree or judgment, which may be construed as a cause of action for the said suit. In the fresh suit, the said decree will be treated as another piece of evidence against the defendant.
However in both cases the decree has to pass the test of S. 13 CPC which specifies certain exceptions under which the foreign judgment becomes inconclusive and is therefore not executable or enforceable in India.

Sections 13 and 14 enact a rule of res judicata in case of foreign judgments. These provisions embody the principle of private international law that a judgment delivered by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction can be enforced by an Indian court and will operate as res judicata between the parties thereto except in the cases mentioned in Section 13.

A foreign judgment may operate as res judicata except in the six cases specified in the section 13 and subject to the other conditions mentioned in Sec. 11 of C.P.C.


Sec. 13 of CPC, 1908:- When foreign judgment not conclusive.

A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except-

(a) Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) Where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

(c) Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of [India] in cases in which such law is applicable;

(d) Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained as opposed to natural justice;

(e) Where it has been obtained by fraud;

(f) Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in [India].

The awards and decrees of the Indian courts are sacrosanct. However, Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) lays down that a foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except in few cases.

The operation of section 13 would be better appreciated by the following illustration:


“A sues B in a foreign court. If the suit is dismissed, the decision will operate as a bar to a fresh suit by A in India on the original cause of action, unless the decision is inoperative by reason of one or more of the circumstances specified. If a decree is passed in favour of A in the foreign court and A sues B on the judgment in India, B will be precluded from putting in issue the same matters that were directly and substantially in issue in the suit in the foreign court, unless the decision is once again inoperative for the said exceptions.”




In the case of R.M.V. Vellachi Achi v. R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1973 Mad. 141, it was alleged by the respondent that since he was not a subject of the foreign country, and that he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court (Singapore Court), the decree could not be executed in India. The Appellant, in defense of this argument, stated that the Respondent was a partner of a firm which was doing business in Singapore and had instituted various suits in the Singapore Courts. Therefore, the Appellant argued, that the Respondent had accepted the Singapore Courts jurisdiction. The Court held that it was the firm which had accepted the jurisdiction of the foreign Court and the Respondent, in an individual capacity, had not accepted the jurisdiction. This was one of the reasons for which the High Court held that the decree against the Respondent was not executable.

The High Court in the above case had referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Ramanathan Chettiar v. Kalimuthu Pillai AIR 1914 Mad. 556, which lays down the circumstances when the foreign courts would have jurisdiction under this Section. The circumstances mentioned are as follows:

a)Where the person is a subject of the foreign country in which the judgment has been obtained                             against him on prior occasions. b) Where he is a resident in foreign country when the action is commenced. c) Where a person selects the foreign Court as the forum for taking action in the capacity of a plaintiff, in which forum he is sued later. d) Where the party on summons voluntarily appears e) Where by an agreement a person has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment is obtained.

In the case of Oomer Hajee Ayoob Sait v. Thirunavukkarasu Pandaram, the Madras High Court while dealing with the issue of submission to jurisdiction held that mere conduct or circumstances indicative of intention to submit to the jurisdiction is enough to derive a conclusion of submission to jurisdiction. In the present case, during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff effected attachment before judgment of certain property of the defendant and the defendant by a letter acknowledged the attachment and requested merely for a concession, which was not a conditional request and when the offer is refused and the defendant remained ex parte and the suit was decreed, it was deemed that the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.

In the case of British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries Ltd. the Supreme Court held that even though the defendant had taken the plea of lack of jurisdiction before the trial Court but did not take the plea before the Appeal Court or in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, it amounted to submission to jurisdiction.



By reading the aforesaid cases under Section 13(a) of CPC the following proposition may be laid:


In case of actions-in-personam, a Foreign Court may pass a decree or judgment against an Indian defendant, who is served with the summons but has chosen to remain ex parte. But the said judgment or decree may be enforceable against such a defendant in India, only if by fulfilling any of the following conditions it can be shown that the Foreign Court had jurisdiction upon the Indian defendant:


  • Where the person is a subject of the foreign country in which the judgment has been obtained against him on prior occasions.
  • Where he is a resident in foreign country when the action is commenced.
  • Where a person selects the foreign Court as the forum for taking action in the capacity of a plaintiff, in which forum he is sued later
  • Where the party on summons voluntarily appears
  • Where by an agreement a person has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment is obtained





  • Not given on the merits of the case:



The fountainhead of all decisions under this head has been the decision of the Privy Council in the case of D.T. Keymer v. P. Viswanatham. In this case, a suit for money was brought in the English Courts against the defendant as partner of a certain firm, wherein the latter denied that he was a partner and also that any money was due. Thereupon the defendant was served with certain interrogatories to be answered. On his omission to answer them his defence was struck off and judgment entered for the plaintiff. When the judgment was sought to be enforced in India, the defendant raised the objection that the judgment had not been rendered on the merits of the case and hence was not conclusive under the meaning of S. 13(b) of CPC. The matter reached the Privy Council, where the Court held that since the defendant’s defence was struck down and it was treated as if the defendant had not defended the claim and the claim of the plaintiff was not investigated into, the decision was not conclusive in the meaning of S. 13(b) and therefore, could not be enforced in India.

In deciding International Woolen Mill’s case (supra), the Supreme Court of India also noted with approval the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Govindan Asari Kesavan Asari v. Shankaran Asari Balakrishnan Asari AIR (1958) Ker. 203 wherein the Kerala High Court held as follows :-

(a) In construing section 13 of the CPC, the Indian Court has to be guided by the plain meaning of the word and expressions used in the section itself and not by other extraneous considerations. There is nothing in the section to suggest that the expression “judgment on the merits” has been used in contradistinction to a decision on a matter of form or by way of penalty.

(b) The section prescribes the conditions to be satisfied by a foreign judgment in order that it may be accepted by an Indian Court as conclusive between the parties thereto or between parties under whom they or any of them litigate under the same title. One such condition is that the judgment must have been given on the merits of the case.

“Whether the judgment is one on the merits, must be apparent from the judgment itself. It is not enough if there is a decree or a decision by the foreign court. In fact, the word “decree” does not find a place anywhere in the section.

What is required is that there must have been a judgment. What the nature of that judgment should be is also indicated by the opening portions of the section where it is stated that the judgment must have directly adjudicated upon the questions arising between the parties”.

(c) The Court must have applied its mind to that matter and must have considered the evidence made available to it in order that it may be said that there has been an adjudication upon the merits of the case. It cannot be said such a decision on the merits is possible only in cases where the defendant enters appearance and contests the plaintiff’s claim. Even where the defendant chooses to remain ex-parte and to keep out, it is possible for the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of his claim and such evidence is generally insisted on by the Courts in India, so that the Court may give a decision on the merits of the plaintiff’s case after a due consideration of such evidence, instead of dispensing with such considerations and giving a decree merely on account of the default of appearance of the defendant.


Under Section 13(b) of CPC the following proposition may be laid:

A judgment or decree passed by a Foreign Court against an Indian defendant, who has    chosen to remain ex-parte, may not be enforceable against him, until unless it can be shown that the said judgment was passed after investigation into, and leading of evidence on the plaintiff’s claim



  1. Where the judgment is passed disregarding the Indian Law or the International Law. –


      In the case of Panchapakesa Iyer v. K.N. Hussain Muhammad Rowther, the facts were that the foreign Court granted the probate of a will in the favour of the executors. The property was mostly under the jurisdiction of the foreign Court, but some of it was in India. A suit came to be filed by the wife of the testator against the executors for a claim of a share in the property. The suit of the widow was decreed and a part of it was satisfied. The remaining part the widow assigned in favour of the Plaintiff in the present suit. In the present suit the Plaintiff relied upon the foreign judgment for a claim against the defendants for a share in the property within the jurisdiction of the domestic Court. One of the defences which was taken for resisting the suit was that the widow’s claim was founded upon a breach of a law in force in India. The Court observed that

She made as the Learned Subordinate Judge has found in another part of his judgment, a claim which could not be entirely supported by the law of British India; but that is a different thing from founding a claim on a breach of the law in British India, for instance a claim in respect of a contract which is prohibited in British India.”


      Another issue which fell for the Courts consideration was that whether the foreign Court had decreed the suit on an incorrect view of International Law. In this regard the Court held that the foreign Court had adopted an incorrect view of International Law, since a foreign Court does not have jurisdiction over the immovable property situated in the other Country’s Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore the judgment was declared to be inconclusive and unenforceable in India.



       Under Section 13(c) of CPC the following proposition may be laid:


  • A judgment or decree passed by a foreign Court upon a claim for immovable property which is situate in the Indian territory may not be enforceable since it offends International Law.
  • A judgment or decree passed by the foreign Court to where before a contrary Indian law had been shown, but the Court had refused to recognise the law, then that Judgement or decree may not be enforceable. However if the proper law of contract is the foreign law then this may not be applicable. 



  • Where the proceedings in which judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice –  



In the case of Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, the Supreme Court while interpreting the scope of S. 13(d) and the expression “principles of natural justice” in the context of foreign judgments held as follows:


“… it merely relates to the alleged irregularities in procedure adopted by the adjudicating court and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. If the proceedings be in accordance with the practice of the foreign court but that practice is not in accordance with natural justice, this court will not allow it to be concluded by them. In other words, the courts are vigilant to see that the defendant had not been deprived of an opportunity to present his side of the case. … The wholesome maxim audi alterem partem is deemed to be universal, not merely of domestic application, and therefore, the only question is, whether the minors had an opportunity of contesting the proceeding in the English Court. If notices of the proceedings were served on their natural guardians, but they did not appear on behalf of the minors although they put in appearance in the proceedings in their personal capacity, what could the foreign court do except to appoint a court guardian for the minors.”




Under Section 13(d) of CPC the following proposition may be laid:


The Foreign Court which delivers the judgment or decree must be composed of impartial persons, must act fairly, without bias in good faith, and it must give reasonable notice to the parties to the dispute and afford each party adequate opportunity of presenting his case, in order to avoid any allegation of not fulfilling the principles of natural justice in case the judgment or decree comes to the Indian court for enforcement. Unless this is done the judgment or decree passed by a foreign Court may be opposed to Principles of Natural Justice.


  • Where it has been obtained by fraud- In the case of Sankaran v. Lakshmi the Supreme Court held as follows:“In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the court was mistaken, it might be shown that it was misled. There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have been rendered but that it can be set aside if the Court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment.” 


           Under Section 13(e) of CPC the following proposition may be laid:


“In case the plaintiff misleads or lies to the Foreign court and the judgment is obtained on that basis, the said Judgment may not be enforceable, however if there is a mistake in the judgment then the Indian courts will not sit as an appeal Court to rectify the mistake”.


  1. Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India –
  2. “It is argued that the Orissa Money Lender’s Act precludes a decree being passed for more than double the principal amount and in passing a decree, based on a claim which violates that rule, the English Court sustained a claim founded on the breach of a law in force in the State of Orissa. I am unable to accept the argument. The claim was not based on the law as prevailing in India at all. Rightly or wrongly, the plaintiffs alleged that the parties were governed not by the Indian law but the English Law. The English Court accepted that plea and were consequently not sustaining a claim based on any violation of the law in India. Suppose, that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English Court and that Court passed a decree. Such a decree would by implication have decided that the defendant was bound by English Law and that the Orissa Money Lender’s Act did not apply. Such a decision would be binding from the international point of view and the point could not be further agitated in these Courts.”
  3. In the case of I&G Investment Trust v. Raja of Khalikote, it was held as follows:



             Under Section 13(f) of CPC the following proposition may be laid:


A judgment or a decree, passed by a foreign court, on a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India may not be enforceable. However, in case it is based upon a contract having a different “proper law of the contract” then it may be enforced.










With the liberalization of Indian economy and the globalization of business activities, there is now almost a free flow of foreign capital/funds in India and similarly Indian companies are increasingly investing in foreign companies. Naturally, in many such international contracts, there are provisions for settlement of inter-se disputes through arbitration at International level or through the adjudication of disputes by the foreign courts. While routinely signing such international contracts may not be in vogue, but still many Indian companies assume that just like in India, litigation in foreign courts will also be protracted and time consuming and that somehow the Indian companies can stall the enforcement of decrees passed by the foreign Courts against Indian companies.

“Recently the Bombay High Court had rendered a judgment ordering admission of a winding up of an Indian company based on the decree passed by a foreign court”


The Bombay High Court has passed a judgment in China Shipping Development Co. Limited v. Lanyard Foods Limited (2007-77 SCL 197-Bom) wherein the High Court has held that a petition for winding up of an Indian company would be maintainable on the basis of judgment of foreign Court. In the above case before the Bombay High Court, the foreign company delivered cargo to the Indian company in compliance with requests made by the Indian company and in the process the foreign company had incurred certain liabilities towards third parties and it had to pay certain amount in legal proceedings and therefore, in terms of the letter of indemnity issued by the respondent Indian company, the foreign company claimed the amount from the respondent Indian company, which denied its liability and therefore the foreign petitioner company initiated legal proceedings against the Indian company in the English Courts as provided in the Letter of Indemnity. The respondent Indian company did not file defence and therefore the English Court passed ex-parte order awarding certain amount in favor of the petitioner foreign company and the foreign court’s order made it clear that the said order was passed on consideration of evidence and was a judgment granted on merits of the claim filed by the foreign company. By a notice issued under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner foreign company called upon the respondent Indian company to pay the amount due under the order of the English Court. As the respondent Indian company still did not pay the amount, the Petitioner foreign company filed a petition for winding up of the Indian company. In the above circumstances since the records of the case manifestly revealed that the respondent Indian company was unable to pay its debts, the petition for winding up was admitted vide order dated 4.4.2007 under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.



Therefore the Analysis of the legal issues involved in enforcement of foreign decrees in India emphasizes the need for the Indian business sectors not to treat the summons received from foreign courts casually and enter appearance and make submissions against the plaint initiated in the foreign courts. Otherwise, to contend at a later stage that the foreign decision/decree is not based on “merit” and does not conform to the provisions of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, may turn out to be too much of a risk and may jeopardize the protective umbrella which the Indian companies are so accustomed to while dealing with litigations in Indian courts.                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                            AASHISH. M DAFARIA