Blog Details

Introduction:

The Civil Code of India gives equal recognition to foreign judgment as to the domestic ones. The legal concept on which it is thrust upon is given under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which underlines ‘Recognition of Foreign Judgments by Civil Code’. The explanation to the particular part of the section says that the foreign judgments shall be binding upon the parties and it will be considered conclusive until or unless there exists a circumstance or exception as defined under the section. The list of the exception as defined under the section in which cases the foreign judgments shall not be considered exclusive are as follows:

1. The foreign judgments are passed by not competent courts.

2. That the foreign judgments have not been passed on the merits of the case.

3. That the foreign judgments are passed without taking into consideration the applicable Indian laws.

4. That the foreign judgments are passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.

5. That the foreign judgment is passed in breach of Indian laws. 

If the judgment passed doesn’t fall in any of the exceptions given under the section, it will act as res-judicata. In addition, Section 13 of the act is a substantive provision and does not lay down the procedural rules. The judgment under section embodies the principle of private international law i.e. judgment pronounced by the foreign courts can be enforced in India and will act as Res judicata.

Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi,(1991) 3 SCC 451: A Landmark Judgment

Supreme Court in the Landmark judgment of Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi,(1991) 3 SCC 451 held that the ground on which the foreign court has granted divorce must be a ground recognized in Indian Law as well. Further, the court held that the decision should come as a result of contest between the parties and the concept of acquiescence to jurisdiction would not suffice. Lastly, it was held that any judgment obtained by fraud would vitiate the legal proceedings since law and fraud cannot co-exist together.

Circumstances before the Indian Courts:

The Indian Courts face a critical situation when it comes to recognizing the divorce judgment/decree passed from the foreign court between the Indian Parties in the foreign land. Such a situation demands the Indian Judges to apply the mind to determine whether the divorce decree passed by the foreign court between the Indian Couples had any validity in India.

Principle of “Comity of Courts”:

The courts in all the countries grant probity to the decree of the foreign court. This means equal status and mutual respect is given to the decree which is passed on the adjudication of  the rights between the parties. The principle was first laid down by the Court in England and later approved by the Indian Supreme Court in Alcon Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Celem SA of FOS 34320 Roujan, (2017) 2 SCC 253, 262 in which it was held that “The principles of comity of nation demand us to respect the order of English Court. Even in regard to an interlocutory order, Indian courts have to give due weight to such order unless it falls under any of the exceptions under Section 13 CPC”.

Recognition and Execution of the Foreign Judgments in India:

Section 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure illustrates the “Principle of Reciprocity”. The following section explains that such judgments of the foreign countries will be executed in India, which has been recognized as the reciprocating nation in the list given under sec 44A of the Code. Therefore, in order to execute a foreign judgment/decree, a constructive and harmonium reading of both the section is required i.e. Section 13 to be read along with the Section 44A of the Act. It further means that, if the judgment does not pass a test of exception as provided under Section 13 of the Act, such judgments cannot be executed. 

Conclusion:

There appears to be some complication when it comes to the recognition of the foreign decrees in India. Several High Courts have given different interpretations to different circumstances arising from the facts of the case. Likewise in the case of Sundaram Pillai v. Kandaswami Pillai, the foreign judgment was held to be enforceable despite the fact that the judgment was obtained from the breach of the Indian Contract. Whereas in Pritam Ashok Sadaphule V. Hema Chugh Conclusion, it was upheld that the Foreign judgment shall not be binding or conclusive in cases where they do not take into consideration the provisions of Indian law or are passed not on merits of case i.e. where parties are not provided an opportunity to contest the suit. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Section 13 does not put forward the conclusivity of the foreign judgment. It only depends upon the interpretation of the section by the judge and also such section in the law ensures that such judgment which are prima facie incorrect and not in accordance with Indian law will not be enforceable and he has the opportunity to question the validity of such judgment in the Indian courts.