IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme 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