Cross-Border Justice: A Comprehensive Guide to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Decrees in India

 The globalization of commerce and increasing cross-border transactions have made the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments a critical aspect of India's legal framework. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides the primary mechanism through which Indian courts evaluate, recognize, and enforce judicial decisions rendered by foreign courts. This comprehensive system balances international judicial comity with the protection of Indian legal sovereignty and public policy.

Understanding the Foundation: Definitions and Scope

Print Page

Supreme Court: Foreign decree should be executed in India as per limitation period of the foreign country

"What is the limitation for filing an application for execution of a foreign decree of a reciprocating country in India?" is the short but interesting question which arises for decision in this case.

 We clarify that for the purpose of this judgment we have used the expressions, "cause country" which will mean the country in which the decree was issued (in this case England), and "forum country" which would mean the country in which the decree is sought to be executed (in this case India).

The view worldwide appears to be that the limitation law of the cause country should be applied even in the forum country. Furthermore, we are of the view that in those cases where the remedy stands extinguished in the cause country it virtually extinguishes the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree and creates a corresponding right in the judgment debtor to challenge the execution of the decree. These are substantive rights and cannot be termed to be procedural. As India becomes a global player in the international business arena, it cannot be one of the few countries where the law of limitation is considered entirely procedural.

 The view worldwide appears to be that the limitation law of the cause country should be applied even in the forum country. Furthermore, we are of the view that in those cases where the remedy stands extinguished in the cause country it virtually extinguishes the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree and creates a corresponding right in the judgment debtor to challenge the execution of the decree. These are substantive rights and cannot be termed to be procedural. As India becomes a global player in the international business arena, it cannot be one of the few countries where the law of limitation is considered entirely procedural.

34. We have already clearly indicated that if the law of a forum country is silent with regard to the limitation prescribed for execution of a foreign decree then the limitation of the cause country would apply.

35. We answer question No. 2 by holding that the limitation period for executing a decree passed by a foreign court (from reciprocating country) in India will be the limitation prescribed in the reciprocating foreign country. Obviously this will be subject to the decree being executable in terms of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2175 of 2020 

Decided On: 17.03.2020

Bank of Baroda  Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Print Page

Whether Indian court should refuse to execute foreign decree due to practical difficulties?

 It is to the reciprocal advantage of the Courts of all nations to enforce
foreign rights as far as practicable. To this end, broad recognition of
substantive rights should not be defeated by some vague assumed
limitations of the Court. When substantive rights are so bound up in a
foreign remedy, the refusal to adopt the remedy would substantially
deprive parties of their rights. The necessity of maintaining the foreign
rights outweighs the practical difficulties involved in applying the foreign remedy. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10106 OF 2016

M/S ALCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD
V
CELEM S.A. OF FOS 34320 ROUJAN, FRANCE & ANR. 
Dated:DECEMBER 09, 2016
Citation:(2017) 2 SCC 253

Print Page

Whether insolvency proceeding can be started on basis of Foreign decree without following procedure laid down in Law?

The   law   is   settled.
Based upon these settled principles itself I am inclined to observe that
there is no question   of enlarging and or extending  the definition   of
the word “order” and “court” if it is not specifically provided under the
Insolvency Act.    The governing law i.e. the CPC also no where permit
or   provide   to   initiate     such   insolvency     proceedings.     There   is   no
question  of  permitting    the    party  to   invoke     insolvency    provisions
when the CPC   and or insolvency     Act no where permits   to initiate
insolvency   proceedings   based   upon   the   foreign   judgment   and   or
decree.  The concept of foreign court and or judgment is defined and
prescribed  under  the  CPC.    This   itself  means  that  the  concept  and
term “court” as provided under the insolvency Act means an Indian
Court only.   I am declined to accept that the court and or order and
or decree so contemplated under the  insolvency Act means  a foreign
court, foreign judgment or foreign decree.   Such drastic proceedings
just cannot be initiated which have presumption or assumption value
and  or  by  enlarging  definitions    as  sought  to  be contended    by  the
learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   judgment   creditor   in   support   of
initiation   of   such   insolvency   proceedings.     In   my   view   it   is
impermissible     and   it   is   without   jurisdiction.      We   have   to   read
intention   of the legislature   by reading the plain language   used in
the  statute, considering the scheme   and purports of the C.P.C. and
the insolvency Act, apart from the concept of intra­border or national
or international treaties and convention and aspects of   territorial as
well  as  courts'   jurisdiction.      If  the  Act   is  silent  and   if  there   is    no
provision,   there   is  no   question     to   read   or   go   beyond   the   existing
provisions   of   law.       The   court   cannot   read   anything   beyond   the
statutory provisions which has  plain language.   There is no question
to enlarge the meaning   and or putting   something into the statute,
specifically when the provisions  are clear and specific

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN INSOLVENCY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.  53  OF    2011 
IN 
INSOLOVENCY NOTICE NO.   28  OF   2011 
Abraaj Investment Management Ltd.,  
V/s.
Mr. Neville Tuli s/o. Ramjidas Tuli  ..
CORAM    :    ANOOP  V.  MOHTA, J.

           PRONOUNCED ON : 17 DECEMBER, 2012
Citation;AIR 2013 (NOC)91 bombay

Print Page