Speculation About Correctness Of Findings Cannot Displace Mandatory Presumption U/S 14 In Favour Of Foreign Judgment: Bombay High Court
The Bench noted that the disclosure does not determine attachability; it merely locates assets in aid of prospective attachment.
Justice A.S. Gadkari, Justice Kamal Khata, Bombay High Court
Refusing to stay a sweeping asset disclosure order against Rolta India founder and promoter Kamal Singh, the Bombay High Court has held that mere assertions or speculative reliance on exceptions under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) cannot displace the mandatory presumption of jurisdiction under Section 14 CPC in favor of a foreign judgment.
The Bench, accordingly, dismissed an appeal filed by Kamal Singh challenging a Single Judge order that required him to disclose, on oath, all personal and corporate assets, bank accounts, and financial transactions dating back to June 6, 2018 (the commencement date of New York litigation).
The proceedings arise from efforts by offshore funds, including Pinpoint Multi Strategy Master Fund, to enforce New York State Supreme Court judgments totaling over $235 Million (approx. ₹2,300 Crore) against Rolta entities and its promoter.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata observed, “The presumption of jurisdiction established by Section 14 is not rebuttable merely by assertion of disagreement with the foreign court's reasoning or conclusions. In our view, the presumption under Section 14 is mandatory and places the burden squarely on the party challenging the foreign judgment to prove want of jurisdiction. Mere speculation that the New York court's findings might be incorrect or reliance on Section 13's exceptions does not displace this presumption. The Appellant has adduced no credible evidence of want of jurisdiction by the New York State Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Appellant's attempt to re-examine the merits of the foreign judgment or its findings of fact is impermissible”.
“…In our view it is yet another plea to delay and deprive the Respondents of their lawful claims. The Court cannot be a mute spectator and ignore these facts”, the Bench further said.
Senior Advocate J. P. Sen appeared for the appellant Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond appeared for the respondent.
The Court observed that Kamal Singh had previously instituted anti-enforcement proceedings before the Bombay High Court seeking to restrain enforcement of the New York judgments and Turnover Orders. Having filed those proceedings, he was estopped from feigning ignorance of the foreign decree or demanding its fresh re-adjudication as a prerequisite to disclosing assets.
Addressing reliance on Supreme Court precedents regarding attachment of property L. K. Prabhu v. K. T. Mathew 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2577 the Court drew a sharp distinction between asset attachment and asset disclosure: it noted that disclosure is purely procedural and merely locates assets in aid of potential future execution.
Further noted that locating assets in the debtor's hands as of June 6, 2018 is essential to determine their attachability, especially given the US Court's finding that funds were deliberately rerouted through private entities to evade enforcement.
The Court noted Singh's central role as Chairman, Managing Director, and ultimate decision-maker of Rolta India. Citing Sections 2(59) and 2(60) of the Companies Act, 2013, the Bench held that his deliberate non-compliance, refusal to abide by US Turnover Orders, and rerouting of funds made his conduct an aggravated, willful breach justifying a retrospective financial audit.
Cause Title: Kamal Singh v. Pinpoint Multi Strategy Master Fund & Ors. [Appeal (L) No. 18227 of 2026]
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate J. P. Sen, Advocates Shyam Kapadia, Simiti Tewari, Nutash Kotwal, Riya Kamdar, Aditya Nair, and Ojasi Nagar (i/b Khaitan Legal Associates).
Respondent: Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, Advocates Rohaan Cama, Anuj Berry, Shalaka Patil, Shilpa Singh Sengar, Kartikey Bhalotia, and Jasleen Virk (i/b Trilegal).