Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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