Simultaneous Execution Of Foreign Decree In India & Cause Country Is Permissible U/S 44A Of CPC: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court said that simultaneous execution under Section 44A of CPC is permissible, supported by the absence of a statutory bar, judicial precedents, and the Decree Holder’s compliance with procedural requirements.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that the simultaneous execution of a Foreign Decree in India and the cause country is permissible under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
The Court held thus in an Execution Petition (EP) filed by the Decree Holder under Section 44-A read with Order XXI Rule 11(2) of the CPC, for execution of a decree passed by the Sharjah Federal Court, Civil Court of Appeal, United Arab Emirates (UAE).
A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, “The Decree Holder has fully complied with procedural requirements by submitting certified copies of the decree and no-satisfaction certificates dated October 15, 2024, and March 20, 2025, confirming the decree’s unsatisfied status. Furthermore, the Judgment Debtors’ objection to simultaneous execution in India and the UAE is wholly untenable, as Section 44A permits parallel proceedings, The Judgment Debtors’ dilatory conduct reinforces the urgent need for expeditious enforcement to uphold the settled rights and ensure commercial certainty.”
The Bench said that the objections raised by the Judgment Debtors to the maintainability of the EP, whether premised on the alleged invalidity of the decree, the pendency of proceedings in the cause country, or the impermissibility of simultaneous execution, stand wholly refuted.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan and Advocate Ashim Sood appeared on behalf of the Decree Holder while Senior Advocate Satvik Verma appeared on behalf of the Judgment Debtors.
Facts of the Case
By the Decree passed by the Sharjah Federal Court, the Judgment Debtors were directed to pay the Decree Holder an aggregate amount of USD 118,790,452.52 (approximately Rs. 991 crores as on July 5, 2024, when the EP was filed) along with interests and costs. In 2022, the Decree Holder brought a claim against Judgment Debtors in the Sharjah Court of First Instance, which dismissed the Petitioner’s claim.
Then the matter was appealed to the Sharjah Court of Appeal, which passed a Decree directing the Judgment Debtors to pay the said amount. This was challenged by the Judgment Debtors and the Decree Holder filed the EP before the High Court. Thereafter, the Sharjah Court dismissed the Appeal of Judgment Debtors, holding them jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.
Issue for Consideration
The question that arose for consideration before the Court was whether a Decree passed by a Court in a reciprocating territory, namely the UAE, can be simultaneously executed both in the cause country i.e., UAE and in the forum country, i.e., India.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “Execution of Court decrees is not an unchartered territory which has not had its fair share of controversy under law. A decree is precisely the trophy that a claimant litigant eyes at the time of approaching a Court of law. However, as it has rightly been pointed out on several occasions, attaining a decree only proves to be less than half the battle won. The Supreme Court has, time and again, observed that unreasonable delay in the execution of decrees just leaves the decree-holder devoid of its efforts, which are put in for attaining a decree. We have also had, and unfortunately so, occasions to observe that the real struggle of a decree holder begins after obtaining the decree.”
The Court explained that to be enforceable in India, in addition to the conditions of production of certified copy of foreign decree, proof of prior satisfaction, if any, of the decree in the foreign jurisdiction, existence of reciprocal arrangement etc., a foreign decree must also satisfy the test of conclusiveness under Section 13 of CPC.
“In addition, the principles of comity of nations require Indian Courts to respect foreign judgments, including those from Courts like the Sharjah Court of Appeal, unless they fall under the exceptions carved out in Section 13 CPC. In this case, the Decree does not attract any of the exceptions and is conclusive on its merits. The Judgment Debtors’ contention that the Decree lacks merit is baseless and warrants rejection. This finding aligns with the broader judicial approach to uphold foreign judgments absent clear statutory or procedural deficiencies”, it enunciated.
The Court held that the Decree is conclusive and executable as a decree under Section 44A of CPC and its adjudication by a competent Court, compliance with due process, and satisfaction of the criteria laid down in Section 13 CPC render it enforceable.
“The Judgment Debtors’ objections are unfounded, and the Decree’s enforceability against Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 4, who hold assets in India, is indisputable. Accordingly, the issue of conclusivity is resolved in favor of the Decree Holder”, it added.
The Court was of the view that simultaneous execution under Section 44A of CPC is permissible, supported by the absence of a statutory bar, judicial precedents, and the Decree Holder’s compliance with procedural requirements.
“… no CPC provision prohibits concurrent enforcement, and the presence of the Judgment Debtors’ assets in India further justifies the Execution Petition’s maintainability. Accordingly, the objections to simultaneous execution are found to be baseless, and the Decree Holder’s right to pursue parallel execution proceedings in India is upheld”, it further held.
Conclusion
The Court remarked that the acts of the litigants obliterate the thin line between sound legal strategy and sharp practices which undermine the sanctity of the judicial process and have the effect of polluting it.
“In light of the above, the EP is held to be unequivocally maintainable under Section 44A of the CPC. The decree, issued on October 10, 2023, by the Sharjah Court of Appeal, is valid, final, and enforceable, as reaffirmed by the same Court on June 19, 2025. It satisfies all tests of conclusiveness under Section 13 CPC, including being pronounced by a competent Court, adjudicated on the merits, and free from fraud, violation of Indian law, or breach of natural justice”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court held the Execution Petition to be maintainable, rejected the objections to its maintainability, and directed for the execution of decree in accordance with the law.
Cause Title- BNP Paribas Suisse SA v. Ashok Kumar Goel & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8496)
Appearance:
Decree Holder: Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, Advocates Ashim Sood, Dhiraj Kumar, Raghav Seth, Aditi Bhansali, Dhriti Batra, Mridula Dixit, and Akilesh Menezes.
Judgment Debtors: Senior Advocate Satvik Verma, Advocates Nandini Gore, Sonia Nigam, Dinkar Kumar, Mohd. Shahyan Khan, Akarsh Sharma, Shantanu Parmar, Deepak Agarwal, and Balram.
