Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Foreign Judgment Enforcement Hinges on “Not Passed on Merits,” Says High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, Karnataka High Court has clarified the crucial criteria for enforcing foreign judgments in India. The court emphasized that for a foreign judgment to be enforceable in India, it must have been “passed on merits,” as per Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). “The foreign judgment is not executable since the same is not on merits and it suffers from its legality and correctness.”

The case, brought before the court, involved the execution of a foreign judgment obtained in the Exeter Country Court, United Kingdom, against a defendant involved in an accident that occurred in India. The judgment debtor had contested the enforceability of the foreign judgment, asserting that it lacked merits and, therefore, was not executable.

In its detailed analysis, the court highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing an opportunity for both parties to present their case. The judgment stated, “If an order is passed without considering any evidence and no evidence is adduced on the plaintiff’s side, the judgment may not be one based on the merits of the case.” This aspect was deemed crucial in determining whether the foreign judgment was enforceable in India.

Moreover, the court examined the jurisdictional aspect, noting that the judgment debtor had submitted objections before the foreign court through an advocate. However, the court found that the foreign judgment did not conclusively decide the issue of jurisdiction and failed to consider the objections raised by the defendant. Consequently, the court ruled that the foreign judgment was not passed on merits and thus could not be enforced in India.

The ruling further elucidated the definition of “judgment,” “decree,” and “order” under the CPC. The court clarified that while “decree” includes “judgment,” and “judgment” includes “order,” it was imperative to assess the order’s merits to determine its enforceability. The court also considered the application of Section 44A, which allows for the execution of decrees passed in reciprocating territories, and held that the foreign court’s order must meet the criteria of being passed on merits to be enforceable.

This ruling sets an essential precedent for the enforcement of foreign judgments in India, emphasizing the need for judgments to be based on merits and providing parties with an opportunity to present their case. The court’s decision also reiterates the significance of considering evidence adduced by the parties in rendering a foreign judgment enforceable in India.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2023             

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD  vs NIGEL RODERICK LLOYD HARRADINE 

Latest Legal News