INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Aditya Chatterjee, Mansa Shukla and Mrinali Dave, Keystone Partners
Keystone Partners Bengaluru Office 1st floor, 35/2 Cunningham Road Bengaluru 560 001 Karnataka India Tel: +91 80 4113 5813 Email: bengaluru@keystone.law Web: www.keystone.law
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in India: A Fresh Look at the Merits Review Threshold After Messer Introduction In April this year, in Messer Griesheim GmbH (now Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) v Goyal MG Gases Pvt Ltd , (2026 SCC OnLine SC 648) (“ Messer Griesheim ”), the Supreme Court of India declined enforcement of a judgment of the High Court of Justice (King’s Bench Division), England and Wales, on the basis that the UK court’s summary judgment fell within the “not on the merits” exception to enforcement of foreign judg - ments under Indian law. Messer Griesheim has practi - cal significance for litigants in foreign courts who may want to enforce the resulting judgment in India. This article (i) traces the statutory framework govern - ing enforcement of foreign judgments; (ii) reviews the treatment of foreign summary judgments and default judgments in Indian case law and whether they have been held to qualify as judgments on “the merits of the case”; (iii) analyses the Messer Griesheim ruling and its implications; and (iv) discusses conclusions that litigants and practitioners in foreign courts may consider when the resulting judgment may require enforcement in India. The statutory framework: conclusiveness of foreign judgments under Section 13 CPC Indian law proceeds on the premise that a foreign judgment passed by a court of proper jurisdiction that has been fairly decided, should ordinarily be given deference and treated as conclusive. This principle
finds statutory recognition in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which says that a for - eign judgment is conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated upon between the same parties, unless one of the following exceptions applies: • the judgment was not by a foreign court of compe - tent jurisdiction; • the judgment was not given on the merits of the case; • the judgment appears, on the face of the proceed - ings, to be founded on an incorrect application of international law or refusal to recognise Indian law where applicable; • the proceedings resulting in the judgment were opposed to natural justice; • the judgment was obtained by fraud; and • the judgment sustains claims founded on a breach of Indian law. Read with Section 44A of the CPC, which provides the mechanism for executing decrees of superior courts in reciprocating territories, Section 13 reflects the balance Indian law strikes between international comity and the protection of fundamental procedural safeguards. Of the six exceptions, the requirement that the foreign judgment must have been “given on the merits of the case” has generated great judicial attention in India. While the expression is not defined in the CPC, judicial interpretation over the last century demonstrates a gradual refinement of its meaning.
209 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook