Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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