http://ssrn.

com/abstract=2409735 1

INDIAN PROCEDURE TO ENFORCE FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS IN

SUITS FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY

MUKTA BATRA
1016140
VIII SEMESTER B.A., L.L.B. ‘B’
Jan. 24, 2014

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735

 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 2

ABSTRACT
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:
This paper is an attempt to understand when judgments of foreign courts in civil matters are
enforceable by domestic courts without the need for a fresh suit.

RESEARCH ISSUES:
1. How are summons and processes of foreign suits issued to those present in India?
What is its effect?
2. What is the effect of a judgment of a reciprocating territory? When is it
unenforceable?

SCOPE AND LIMITATION:

Enforcement under S. 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 is the basis of this paper.
It does not discuss foreign judgements in contexts other than money suits in great detail.

SOURCES OF DATA:
Primary and secondary sources of data have been used herein.

MODE OF CITATION:
A uniform mode of citation, as prescribed in the 19th edition of the Bluebook, has been used.

FINDING:
The mode of service of foreign summonses as laid down in CPC is limited and does not
extend to all reciprocating territories. There is no clarity about whether the process under the
Hague Convention applies, since there is no resource of the Government of India could be
found that corroborates the application of such process.

KEY WORDS: Procedure, CPC, Foreign Judgement, Money Suit, Summon, Reciprocating
Territory, India, Jurisdiction, Bangladesh, Aden, U.K.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735

 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF COMPETING

JURISDICTIONS IN ENFORCING LEGAL RIGHTS IN
1. 4
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS

RECIPROCATING TERRITORIES
2. 7

INDIA’s RECIPROCATING TERRITORIES

3. 8

SERVICES OF NOTICES, SUMMONS AND PROCESSES

4.
BY A FOREIGN COURT TO INDIA 10

EFFECT OF THE DECREE OF A COMPETENT COURT OF

A RECIPROCATING TERRITORY
5. A. PRESUMPTION AS TO VALIDITY 13
B. WHEN IT IS UNENFORCEABLE.

CONCLUSION
6. 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY
7. 17
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 4

INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OF COMPETING

JURISDICTIONS IN ENFORCING LEGAL RIGHTS IN
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS

The world is becoming increasingly globalised. With it emerges the trend of transactions
between states themselves and between nationals of different states. This leads to the high
likelihood of being subject to foreign laws and ambiguity of jurisdiction. An inter-
jurisdictional support case is one in which the parties live in different jurisdictions. Those
jurisdictions could refer to either different provinces and territories or different countries.1
Often, the court exercising jurisdiction and the place where relief is to be granted are in the
territorial jurisdiction of different states. Thus, legal proceedings in the jurisdiction of one
state will often have implications in the jurisdiction of another: being sought to be enforced
by the former state in the latter state.

Here comes the issue of one state exercising jurisdiction over the other.

Jurisdiction is a very important concept as it denotes the exercise of power 2, particularly

through legislative, judicial and executive action3.
If a state seeks to enforce its judgment over another state unilaterally, it infringes the
sovereignty the latter exercises through its judicial system.4
Further legal proceedings ensue in the enforcing state to determine the enforceability of a
foreign judgement. At times, foreign judgments may be disregarded altogether and fresh
proceedings are necessary in the enforcing state.

Where both jurisdictions permit the parties to approach their courts and to receive reliefs
under their respective laws, the law in the two states can be markedly different, often
clashing. Forum shopping will enable the Plaintiff to approach the more favourable legal
regime. However, there is uncertainty of outcomes, particularly if the enforcing state refuses

1
Tracy Morrow, Some Considerations for Practitioners in Inter-jurisdictional Support Cases (Last accessed
Jan. 20, 2014) http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/topic-theme/ord2a.html
2
MALCOLM SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 345 (Cambridge, 6th ed.)
3
Id.
4
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/alrc-80-legal-risk-international-transactions/6-international-litigation
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 5

to enforce a decree based on law contrary to or different from that prevalent in its
jurisdiction.

Judiciaries often exercise some limits on their own powers beyond the territory or on the
powers of foreign courts within its territory. The courts of a country generally impose a three-
fold restriction on the exercise of their jurisdiction: jurisdiction in rem by a court over res
outside the jurisdiction will not be exercised, because it will not be recognised by other
courts; the court will not deal directly or indirectly with title to immovable property outside
the jurisdiction of the state from which it derives its authority, and
the court will not assist in the enforcement within its jurisdiction of foreign penal or revenue
laws.5

Treaties, as well as contract laws, often provide for dispute resolution mechanisms and also
for the “seat” of dispute resolution which prescribes the law applicable to dispute resolution.
It also often stipulates the “place” (location) of the dispute resolution. This is particularly true
of arbitration clauses. This eliminates this difficulty.
Though there may be no ambiguity in what law is applied and which court will resolve the
dispute, it is the jurisdictional court in the judgement debtor’s state (or the state in which the
decree has to be given effect) that has to enforce the award, order, decree or processes of the
competent court.6
A jurisdictional court may not recognise the decree or order of a competent foreign court to
be binding in its jurisdiction. There is an overlap of jurisdictions of the competent court and
the jurisdictional court. Though the competent court has adjudged the matter, the
jurisdictional court will hear, and perhaps even try the matter; as if it were a fresh case and
the foreign decree will be evidence which has to be proved.
This leads to duplicity of proceedings, delay and uncertainty of outcomes. Also, when the
jurisdictional court decrees the matter, it may reverse roles with the competent court as there

5
R. Viswanathan vs Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 1963 SCR (3) 22
6
Competent court refers to the Court in which the suit was initiated. The Jurisdictional court refers to the court
where the decree is sought to be enforced. The terms “original court” and “registering court” respectively can
also be used to denote the same.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 6

needs to be some amount of complicity, since the judgement has direct and proximate
repercussions on the said territory. This leads to uncertainty.7
States may prescribe either that a judgment of a foreign court be enforced as though it was a
decision of a competent local court or that the decree has to be proved and its enforceability
to be argued in a jurisdictional court.

This paper deals with how the municipal law of the Federal Republic of India treats the
decrees and awards of foreign courts. It discusses how Indian jurisdiction is exercised over
the matter having an impact that is directly linked to the domestic territory or how judgement
of a foreign court which has exercised jurisdiction is validated and effected.
Only civil matters are discussed here. Dispute resolution in treaties and the exercise of
criminal jurisdiction is not dealt with.

7
The jurisdictional court and the competent court are relative terms. Eg: If the contract of a citizen of
Azerbaijan , Mr. A, and an Indian citizen, Mr. I is adjudged by a superior court of Azerbaijan, the court of
Azerbaijan becomes the “competent court” and the courts of India are “jurisdictional courts” where the decree
has to be enforced. However, if India does not recognise the decree and re-tries the matter, the decree of Indian
court will make the said Indian court the “competent court”. The decree, having repercussions in Azerbaijan or
on a citizen of Azerbaijan, will require complicity of the jurisdictional Court of Azerbaijan to be enforced. It
will then become the “jurisdictional court”.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 7

RECIPROCATING TERRITORIES

Most countries have resolved this by their municipal laws or by treaties to declare a certain
state as a “reciprocating territory”. Ordinarily, a legal decree would have effect only within
the territorial borders. Reciprocity is a mechanism wherein the decree has the same effect and
authority in another state, under its law. The state which decrees and the state which gives
such decree the same authority and effect as though it was passed by it, are reciprocating
territories to one another.8, 9 Thus, instead of getting two orders: an order where the suit was
initiated and an order of confirmation of such decree where the decree has to be enforced
BEFORE execution of the decree, the procedure for execution is followed in the executing
territory.

India follows a hybrid model. The judgments of superior courts of reciprocating countries are
enforceable in India through an application, unless the judgement suffers from gross defects.
Judgements of other foreign courts are not conclusive and have to be argued in court within
India. However, if the competent court’s order can be validly executed in India, it does not
dispense with the need of an execution petition.

India, Canada, U.K., Australia and New Zealand are some countries that have reciprocating
territories for enforcement of judgements.

Where the territory where the judgment originates and that where the judgment is to be
enforced are not reciprocating, a fresh suit has to be instituted in the latter and the original
judgment (of the competent court) has mere evidentiary value in a suit instituted in the
enforcing country.

Reciprocity is a bilateral arrangement in which states agree to give a special status to each
other’s judgments in their countries.

8
https://www.isoforms.bc.ca/frequently-asked-questions/index.php?template=print
9
The term “reciprocating territories” or “reciprocal territories” is used in many contexts to show the mutual
recognition of various things. It is used by Malaysia in the Licensed Land Surveyors Act, 1958, to denote
territories with which the Board has agreed to recognise land surveyors. In the context of UNCLOS, the
“reciprocating states regime” was a regime parallel to the UNCLOS.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 8

INDIA’s RECIPROCATING TERRITORIES

S. 44A of the CPC enables the Central Government to declare states as reciprocating states
for the purpose of enforcement of decrees of their superior courts by notification in official
gazzette. “Decrees” are limited to decrees in money suits.10 They exclude decrees where tax,
fine, penalty or other charges have to be collected. It also excludes an arbitration award, even
if it is enforceable as a decree. The superior court refers to the court declared as a superior
court in such notification.

India is a reciprocating territory with:

1. Hong Kong11;

2. Republic of Singapore12;

3. Trinidad and Tobago13

4. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland14

5. New Zealand, Cook Islands and Western Samoa15

6. Papua New Guinea16

10
Explaination II to S. 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the decree should be a pure and simple money
decree to attract the benefit of the procedure laid down in S. 44A.
11
Official Gazette of India dated 23.11.1968, Part II, S.3 at page 611;
12
Official Gazette of India dated 23.11.1968, S.3, page 355;
13
Gazette of India dated 23.11.1968, Part II, S.3, page 464B
14
Gazette of India dated 23.11.1968 Part II S. 3, SRO 399; the UK has enacted Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal
Enforcement) Act, 1972 under which India is its reciprocating territory. High Court in England, and Court of
Sessions in Scotland, the High Court in Northern Ireland, the Court of Chancery of the Country Palatine of
Lancaster and the Court of Chancery of the Country Palatine of Darham to be the Superior Courts of the UK.
All High Courts and Judicial Commissioners Courts, All District Courts, All other courts whose civil
jurisdiction is subject to no pecuniary limit provided that the judgment sought to be registered under the said Act
is sealed with a seal showing that the jurisdiction of the courts is subject to no pecuniary limits are superior
courts for India when the judgment is to be enforced by the UK.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/protecting-the-vulnerable/official-solicitor/reciprocal-enforcement-of-
maintenance-orders/remo-location-list.pdf
15
Gazette of India dated 15.10.1937, Part II, S.3, page 2505
16
Gazette of India dated 26.09.1970, Part II, S. 3, page 731
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 9

7. Bangladesh17;

8. Aden18

9. Fiji Colony19

10. Federation of Malaya20

11. Victoria21

“Decrees”22 of such superior foreign courts as specified in the notification are enforceable
by any district court within India as if it was a suit filed in a district court.

17
Gazette of India dated 06.03.1976, Part II, S. 3, page 613
18
Gazette of India dated 18.01.1956, SRO 183
19
Central Government Notification No. S.R.O. 959, dated the 22nd March, 1954 published in the Gazette of
India of 27th March 1954.
20
Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No. S.R.O. 4, dated the 3rd January, 1956. High Court
and the Courts of Appeal are superior courts of Malaya.
21
Gazette of India dated 15.10.1957, SRO 3282,
22
Decrees include decrees for payment of money, so long as it is not recovery of tax, fines, penalties, or similar
charges. Decrees also exclude arbitral awards, even if they are enforceable as orders of a competent court.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 10

SERVICE OF NOTICES, SUMMONS, PROCESSES TO BY A FOREIGN

COUNTRY TO INDIA

Summons, arguments, notices and any other processes should be sent to the Defendant. Even
a foreign court has a duty to issue an Indian citizen, residing in India with such documents if
he is arrayed as a party in any such proceeding.

UNDER THE CIVIL PRODECURE CODE:

On notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Government, foreign revenue and civil
courts seeking to serve summons on persons in India can serve summonses through the
Indian court having jurisdiction in the territory the summons is sought to be served. Such
summonses are treated as though they were served by the courts in India.23

This provision has been extended only to the civil courts of Mongolia24 and of the Kingdom
of Baharain25.

FOR OTHER TERRITORIES:

The Hague Convention26 applies to service of judicial or extrajudicial documents abroad.27

India has ratified this convention.28

The authority where the document originates has to forward the application to serve such
document to the Central Authority of the state, with the documents annexed. The serving

23
S. 29(c)

24
G.S.R. 622(E), dated 1st October, 2005

25
G.S.R. 644(E), dated 22nd October, 2005

26
Hague: Convention on The Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial
Matters
27
Id. Article 1
28
Ratified on 23-11-2006, with reservations to Art. 10, 15 and 16. India prohibits personal service, postal
service or service effected through a judicial officer. The service of judicial documents through diplomatic or
consular channels is a privilege limited to the nationals of the State in which the documents originate. Indian
judges may give judgment on matters involving a foreign even if no certificate of service has been received.
Relief against such judgement is to be sought within one year.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 11

state may serve the document according to its domestic laws or as per the terms of agreement
with the receiving state. Consular or diplomatic channels may also be used for service.

In India, the document has to be served through the Central Authority of the Ministry of Law
and Justice to be considered a valid service29. When a writ of summons or an equivalent
document had to be transmitted abroad for the purpose of service, under the provisions of the
present Convention, and a judgment has been entered ex-parte against a defendant, the
convention states that such judgment is enforceable in the jurisdictional court, despite being
ex-parte. This is followed in India as well.30 However, the party which was ex-parte the
proceedings can object to enforcement, the period of limitation may be relaxed for this. Also,
while giving a reply, delay should be allowed for. India limits the relaxation for up to a year
from the date of knowledge of the proceedings.

A defence for non- applicability of the jurisdiction or decision of the foreign court is the
contention that the defendant has not submitted to the jurisdiction. Submission to jurisdiction
may manifest in different forms.31 Appearance in the court or defending the claim in such
court shows that the Defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court.32 Even the act
of challenging the jurisdiction of a court while appearing there is enough to show submission
to jurisdiction.33,34 Parties may also submit to jurisdiction by agreement. This contractual

29
Central Authority,The Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Room No 439A, 4th Floor,
A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001, India. (See
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=authorities.details&aid=712 )
30
Dr. Kulwant Singh v Dhan Raj Dutt AIR 1935 Lahore 396: if a foreign court has strictly followed ‘the
procedure’ and has given full opportunity to the defendant to appear and raise a defence, then, even if that
judgment is passed ex-parte it shall be considered to have been decided on merits.
31
Adrian Briggs, Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones: Rethinking the Law on Foreign Judgments, 8
Singapore Year Book of International Law and Contributors, 1-22 (2004) Available at
http://law.nus.edu.sg/sybil/downloads/articles/SYBIL-2004/SYBIL-2004-1.pdf
32
Adams v Cape Industries Plc [1990] Ch. 433, 518 (Eng. C.A.); State Bank of India v. Murjani Marketing
Group (27 March 1991) (Eng. C.A.)
33
This is a common law rule. See Beals v. Saldanha (2004) 234 D.L.R. (4th)1.
34
The High Court of Calcutta inferred jurisdiction only because the case was also argued on merits by the
defendant who challenged the jurisdiction Chormal Balchand Firm v. Kasturi Chand AIR 1938 Cal 511 at 516;

But in Narappa Naicken v. Govindaraju Naicken (AIR 1934 Mad. 434) appearance in a foreign court was held
not to be an act of submission to jurisdiction. Even a failure to succeed in an action in a foreign court of setting
aside its decree is considered not to be a submission of jurisdiction. However, if the judgement is quashed and
the party at whose occasion the judgment was quashed pleads his case, pleading proves his submission to the
court in respect of the new decree.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 12

agreement of fixing jurisdiction fixes certainty of the place of dispute resolution and the
applicable laws. Also, it prevents the defendant from taking benefit from his breach and is
therefore equitable. However, where a contract was governed by English law, the Calcutta
High Court held that the governing law gave the parties a cause of action and did not give the
English Courts jurisdiction in the proper sense and therefore the decree was inexecutable.
Thus, submitting to application of a certain law for governance does not amount to
submission of jurisdiction.35 However, if a power of attorney is granted to a foreign resident
by the Defendant and if the power-of-attorney is served with summons by the foreign court,
this amounts to the defendant’s submission to jurisdiction.36

Submission to a foreign court for one case does imply that the party submits to such court for
ALL cases. A party can submit to a foreign court in one instance and refuse to in another37

This allows the common law principle of res-judicata to apply in the jurisdictional court
which enforces the claim.38

If a defendant takes a plea of lack of jurisdiction, he may not have submitted to the jurisdiction. However, if he
fails to take the plea of lack of jurisdiction on appeal, it amounts to submission of the jurisdiction of the foreign
court. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries Ltd. (1990)3 SCC 481 at
p. 495
35
I&G Investment Trust v. Raja of Khalikote AIR 1952 Cal. 508.
36
VithalBhai ShivaBhai Patel v. Lalbhai Bhimbhai AIR 1942 Bom 199 at p. 202. If the state is a reciprocating
territory, then such judgment needs only execution under the provisions of the CPC.
37
Thirunavakkaru Pandaram v. Parasurama Ayyar, AIR 1937 Mad. 97 at p. 99.
38
ADRIAN BRIGGS, Supra Note 27 at 4.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 13

EFFECT OF THE DECREE OF A COMPETENT COURT OF A

RECIPROCATING TERRITORY

If a competent court within a reciprocating territory passes a decree in a simple money suit of
civil nature, it leads to the legal fiction that a jurisdictional court has passed such judgment
itself. The decree is enforced as though the court enforcing it had passed it: as if it was a
domestic decree.39 The binding nature of the decree is not questioned. However, it can be
disproved.40 This eliminates the need to institute a fresh suit and a decree holder of a
competent court of a reciprocating territory can execute the decree in India. This gives
reciprocating territories greater privileges as S. 47 of the CPC is directly applicable; it is not
so applicable against non-reciprocating territories.41 However, nowhere in the CPC does it
permit a foreign decree holder to institute insolvency proceedings in India based on foreign
decrees.42

PRESUMPTION AS TO VALIDITY

If a certified copy of what is purported to be a foreign judgement, which is pronounced by a

court of competent jurisdiction, is produced in an Indian Court, it will be presumed to be
valid, unless the contrary appears on the record. This presumption can be refuted by showing
want of jurisdiction.43 The courts may also refuse to grant such presumption when there is an
error on the face of the record. If the judgment could not be proved to be invalid and it is a
judgment of a reciprocating state’s competent court, it is executable in India

39
M.V. A.L. Quamar v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd
40
See Ss. 13 and 14 of the CPC on foreign judgments.
41
N.P.A.K. Muthiah Chettiar (died) and Ors. Vs. K.S. Rm. Firm Shwebo, Burma and Ors; Kevin George Vaz
Vs. Cotton Textiles Exports Promotion Council
42
This has been established in many cases. In Abraaj Investment Management Ltd. v Mr. Neville Tuli
2013(1)ABR701, the High Court of Bombay held that decrees of insolvency against Indian citizens by foreign
courts were illegal and un-enforceable in India.
43
S. 14 of the CPC, M.V. A.L. Quamar v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd; Also, where the defendant can
show that he did not submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court, he may succeed in establishing the invalidity of
the judgment.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 14

The court is prohibited from determining whether the foreign court has “correctly”
understood and accounted for the materials placed on record. It can only see that the deciding
court should have appeared to apply its mind44.

WHEN DECREE OF A FOREIGN COURT IS UNENFORCEABLE

S. 13 of the CPC provides for circumstances when the decree cannot be enforced because it is
inconclusive. A judgement is inconclusive if the court is not competent: i.e., on want of
jurisdiction.45 This makes the judgment a nullity and it would be unenforceable in Indian
courts. Where the case has not been decided on its merits, it is inconclusive and
unenforceable. Ordinarily, the court does not go into the merits of the case decided in the
foreign court. However, due to S. 13(b) of CPC, the Courts in India have a right to examine
the judgment to see whether it has been given on the merits.46

Ex-parte decisions of foreign courts can be said to be passed without merits.47 India has
ratified the Hague convention on service of documents. It provides that if a person is served

44
Delhi High Court, In Re Formosa Plastic Corporation Ltd. v Ashok Chauhan & Ors on 8 October, 1998. See
also Dr. Kulwant Vs. Dhan Raj Dutt, Shalig Ram Vs. Firm Daulatram Kundanmal
45
Moloji Nar Singh Rao v. Shankar Saran AIR 1962 SC 1737 (decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court of India). Where all the following criteria can be established, the foreign court lacks jurisdiction:

(a) The defendants are not the subjects of the foreign country;

(b) They did not owe any allegiance to the Ruler and therefore they were under no obligation to accept the
judgments of the Courts of that state.

(c) They were not residents in that state when the suit was instituted.

(d) They were not temporarily present in that State when the process was served on them.

(e) They did not in their character as plaintiffs in the foreign action themselves select the forum where the
judgment was given against them

(f) They did not voluntarily appear in that court.

(g) They had not contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.

This reasoning has been followed in A.S. Subramaniam Chettiar v. M.K. Srinivasa Ayyar, AIR 1951 Mad. 289
and other cases.
46
Mallappa Yellappa Bennur v. Raghavendra Shamrao Deshpande, AIR 1938 Bom. 173 at 177
47
R.E. Mahomed Kassim & Co. v. Seeni Pakir-bin Ahmed, AIR 1927 Mad. 265(FB)
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 15

with a notice according to the procedure thereunder and still does not participates in the
proceedings, the foreign court can issue judgment, ex-parte the defendant, which will be
binding and executable against him. However, this is not applicable in India as India has
made reservations to the convention to make it consistent with S. 13(b) of the CPC. Where
judgments are obtained by fraud, the proceedings were opposed to natural justice, or the
judgment disregards or is in conflict with applicable Indian or international law, it is
unenforceable within the territory of India.

Such decisions are a nullity and cannot be enforced in the Indian Territory. There is nothing
in the Civil Procedure Code, however, to suggest that the foreign country cannot enforce the
judgment within its territory against an Indian national.

When it comes to enforcement of Arbitral Awards48, the law established under the Arbitration
Act. S. 44A is not applicable, even if the award has the force of a decree under the foreign
49
law or even under Indian law. The Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act
1961, which was enacted pursuant to the New York Convention on Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, governed arbitral awards till the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was based on UNCITRAL model laws, was enacted.

48
Arbitral Awards, not being “suits” under S. 9 are not discussed in detail.

49
Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. The party holding a foreign award can straightaway apply for
the enforcement of the same and while enforcing the award, the Court has to proceed in accordance with
Sections 47-49 of the Arbitration Act. Once the Court decides that the foreign award is enforceable, it can
proceed to execute the same. A foreign award can be executed in India by filing an Execution Application after
a foreign arbitration award is held to be enforceable by an Indian Court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the
apex court in the above case, a foreign award is deemed and does not become a decree after decision of the court
as regards its enforceability; Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd;
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 16

CONCLUSION

In a more globalised world, the regime of reciprocating states has made it easier, more cost-
effective, more conclusive and faster to resolve a dispute contested by those in different
states. Reciprocating regimes also exist within a country, to regulate the enforcement of
judgments of provinces or districts.

Countries are hesitant to exercise jurisdiction in international litigation, where it may hamper
its international relations. It may also exercise or refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in
accordance with its political or diplomatic objectives.50

Courts do not, as a rule, aid foreign courts in enforcing penalties or arrears of tax due to the
foreign country. With international trade increasing, the cross-border evasion of tax is
permissible. While double taxation treaties may fix responsibility and rate of payment of tax,
how it can be enforced on a non resident citizen is unclear.

Though taxation is a sovereign function, recovery of arrears of tax with assistance of a

foreign court where the accused is situated, may become a subject matter of reciprocating
regimes to enable speedy recovery of tax arrears.

Another area that is underdeveloped is the procedure of service of summonses from foreign
jurisdictions. It would be more effective and accessible if the provisions of service of
summonses in relation to foreign judgments were given in greater details in the CPC itself.
The scope of S. 29 is narrow and relates to Civil and Revenue Courts of only two countries,
Mongolia and the Kingdom of Baharain. The procedure in relation to other countries is
ambiguous and the Hague Convention was referred to. There was no authentic Indian source
one was able to corroborate the procedure of and office to which summons is to be served
which is mentioned in the Hague website.

The Indian government needs to take initiative on these fronts.

50
See Bi v Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics. The U.S. exercised forum non-conveniens and asked the
parties to approach Indian Courts. It has been suggested that the underlying motivation was to prevent
unfavourable relations with India. It could also be to protect the interest of the corporation as Indian
environmental laws are considered to be lenient.
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. ANUPAM SRIVASTAVA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 (Manupatra,

3rd ed., 2010)

2. MALCOLM SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW (Cambridge, 6th ed.);

3. VINAY KUMAR GUPTA, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Lexisnexis Butterworths,

2005);

4. JOHN WOODROFFE, AMEER ALI, JOHN WOODROFFE AND AMEER ALI’s

COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (Delhi DL House,
2006)

CONVENTION:

Hague: Convention on The Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil
or Commercial Matters

JOURNALS, ARTICLES, ONLINE SOURCES

1. Adrian Briggs, Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones: Rethinking the Law on
Foreign Judgments, 8 Singapore Year Book of International Law and
Contributors, 1-22 (2004) Available at
http://law.nus.edu.sg/sybil/downloads/articles/SYBIL-2004/SYBIL-2004-1.pdf
2. Dr. SHRIKANT HATHI AND BINITA HATHI, SHIP ARREST IN INDIA AND
ADMIRALTY LAWS OF INDIA, (2012, 7th ed.) available at
http://admiraltypractice.com/chapters/72.htm
3. Enforcement of foreign judgments http://astrealegal.com/enforcement-of-foreign-
judgments
4. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=authorities.details&aid=712
5. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/protecting-the-vulnerable/official-
solicitor/reciprocal-enforcement-of-maintenance-orders/remo-location-list.pdf
6. https://www.isoforms.bc.ca/frequently-asked-questions/index.php?template=print
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 18

7. Indiankanoon http://www.indiankanoon.org/
8. International Litigation http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/alrc-80-legal-risk-
international-transactions/6-international-litigation
9. Tracy Morrow, Some Considerations for Practitioners in Inter-jurisdictional
Support Cases, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/topic-
theme/ord2a.html

CASES:

1. A.S. Subramaniam Chettiar v M.K. Srinivasa Ayyar, AIR 1951 Mad. 289
2. Abraaj Investment Management Ltd. v Mr. Neville Tuli 2013(1)ABR701
3. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries Ltd.
(1990)3 SCC 481
4. Chormal Balchand Firm v Kasturi Chand AIR 1938 Cal 511 at 516

5. Delhi High Court, In Re Formosa Plastic Corporation Ltd. v Ashok Chauhan & Ors
on 8 October, 1998.
6. Dr. Kulwant Singh v Dhan Raj Dutt AIR 1935 Lahore 396

7. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v Jindal Exports Ltd.

8. I&G Investment Trust v Raja of Khalikote AIR 1952 Cal. 508.

9. Kevin George Vaz v Cotton Textiles Exports Promotion Council

10. M.V. A.L. Quamar v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd
11. Mallappa Yellappa Bennur v Raghavendra Shamrao Deshpande, AIR 1938 Bom. 173
at 177
12. Moloji Nar Singh Rao v Shankar Saran AIR 1962 SC 1737
13. N.P.A.K. Muthiah Chettiar (died) and Ors. v K.S. Rm. Firm Shwebo, Burma and Ors;
14. Narappa Naicken v Govindaraju Naicken (AIR 1934 Mad. 434)

15. R. Viswanathan v Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 1963 SCR (3) 22

16. R.E. Mahomed Kassim & Co. v Seeni Pakir-bin Ahmed, AIR 1927 Mad. 265(FB)
17. Shalig Ram v Firm Daulatram Kundanmal
 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2409735 19

18. Thirunavakkaru Pandaram v Parasurama Ayyar, AIR 1937 Mad. 97

19. Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v Steel Authority of India Ltd

20. Vithal Bhai Shiva Bhai Patel v Lalbhai Bhimbhai AIR 1942 Bom 199