Unified Chambers
Loading
These are the countries notified by the Central Government as reciprocating territories under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
| Territory | Notes / superior courts |
|---|---|
| United Kingdom | England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (constituent jurisdictions) |
| Singapore | High Court and Court of Appeal judgments |
| Malaysia | Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court |
| Hong Kong SAR | Special Administrative Region — HKSAR High Court and above |
| Bangladesh | Limited categories — verify current notification |
| Trinidad and Tobago | Historical commonwealth reciprocal arrangement |
| New Zealand | Including Cook Islands and Niue (territories associated with New Zealand) |
| Papua New Guinea | Notified reciprocating territory |
| Fiji | Commonwealth-era notification |
| Aden (now part of Yemen) | Historical notification — Aden is now part of Yemen |
| United Arab Emirates | Notified 17 January 2020 — superior courts: Federal Supreme Court, Dubai Courts, Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, DIFC Courts, ADGM Courts, Ras Al Khaimah Judicial Department |
NOT reciprocating (Section 13 CPC fresh suit required): USA, Canada, Australia, EU member states, China, Japan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Judgments from these countries cannot be directly executed in India — the judgment creditor must file a fresh civil suit under Section 13 CPC.
The Section 44A direct execution route and the Section 13 fresh suit route are fundamentally different in mechanics, timelines, and the defendant's available defences. Choosing the right route — and preparing the case correctly from the outset — is critical to avoiding procedural defeats.
Section 13 CPC provides that a foreign judgment is conclusive on the parties as to the matter adjudicated — subject to six statutory exceptions. These are the only grounds on which an Indian defendant can challenge a foreign judgment in Indian proceedings. Unified Chambers prepares every foreign judgment enforcement mandate by anticipating which Section 13 ground the Indian defendant is likely to raise and building pre-emptive counter-arguments.
The foreign court lacked competent jurisdiction over the defendant or subject matter under private international law. Counter: show express jurisdiction clause in contract or defendant's submission to jurisdiction.
The judgment was not given on the merits of the case. Counter: show that the foreign court conducted a substantive hearing or that a reasoned default judgment was entered — not a bare procedural order.
The judgment is founded on incorrect international law or refuses to recognise Indian law where applicable. Counter: show the chosen governing law was the foreign law — not Indian law.
The proceedings were opposed to natural justice — inadequate notice, denial of hearing. Counter: show proper service, adequate notice period, and opportunity to appear and contest.
The judgment was obtained by fraud. Counter: show no suppression or misrepresentation in the foreign proceedings. High threshold — mere procedural irregularity does not constitute fraud.
The judgment sustains a claim based on a breach of Indian law. Counter: ensure underlying contract obligation is not illegal under Indian law. Wagering contracts, FEMA-violating transactions are classic examples.
Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides a streamlined execution mechanism for decrees from "superior courts" of "reciprocating territories" — countries notified by the Central Government of India as having substantially reciprocal provisions for the execution of Indian decrees. The current list of reciprocating territories notified under Section 44A includes: United Kingdom (and its Crown Dependencies), Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region), Bangladesh, Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue (territories associated with New Zealand), Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Aden (now part of Yemen), and the United Arab Emirates (notified on 17 January 2020 — its superior courts include the Federal Supreme Court, the Dubai Courts, the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, the DIFC Courts, the ADGM Courts and the Ras Al Khaimah Judicial Department). Notably absent from the list: USA, Canada, Australia, all EU member states, China, Japan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. For countries not on the list, Section 13 CPC applies — requiring a fresh civil suit.
For a UK or Singapore judgment, the enforcement process under Section 44A CPC is as follows: (1) Obtain a certified copy of the foreign decree from the issuing court; (2) Obtain a certificate from the foreign court stating that the decree is a decree of a superior court, that it is for payment of money (not enforcement of a charge or tax obligation), and that the decree has not been fully satisfied; (3) File an execution petition before the Indian District Court or the High Court (depending on the value and nature of the decree) in the district where the debtor resides or has property; (4) The Indian court, on receipt of the certified documents, treats the foreign decree as if it were a decree of that Indian court and proceeds to execution; (5) The debtor may oppose execution only on the grounds available under Section 13 CPC — if none of those grounds applies, execution proceeds. The timeline for an uncontested Section 44A execution is typically 6–12 months.
Section 13 of the CPC provides that a foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter adjudicated between the parties — but that conclusiveness is subject to six exceptions under which an Indian court will not recognise or enforce the foreign judgment. The six grounds are: (a) the judgment was not pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction — meaning the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter under private international law; (b) the judgment was not given on the merits of the case — a default judgment where no hearing on merits occurred may be challenged on this ground; (c) the judgment appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise Indian law where applicable; (d) the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were opposed to natural justice — inadequate notice, procedural unfairness, denial of opportunity to be heard; (e) the judgment was obtained by fraud; (f) the judgment sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India — e.g., a foreign judgment for enforcement of a wagering contract or other contract illegal in India. The burden of establishing any of these exceptions lies on the party challenging the judgment.
The USA, Canada, and Australia are not reciprocating territories under Section 44A CPC. US, Canadian, or Australian court judgments cannot be directly executed in India. The judgment creditor must file a fresh civil suit in the competent Indian court under Section 13 CPC. In this suit, the US or Canadian judgment is placed as conclusive evidence of the debt. The Indian defendant may raise Section 13 defences but — if the judgment was from a court of clear jurisdiction, on the merits, with proper notice and no fraud — those defences are difficult to sustain. The Indian court then passes its own decree based on the foreign judgment, which is executed through standard Indian enforcement mechanisms. The Section 13 route adds 12–24 months to the timeline compared to a Section 44A execution.
Foreign court injunctions — including Mareva injunctions (worldwide freezing orders) granted by English courts — are not automatically enforceable in India. India is not a party to any treaty on the mutual recognition of injunctive relief. A Mareva order obtained from the English High Court cannot be registered in India as a court order. However, the practical effect is achieved through two routes: (1) where the Indian assets subject to the Mareva order are within the personal control of a party amenable to the English court's contempt jurisdiction, the person may be compelled to comply; (2) more importantly, the Indian court can be approached under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act (if an arbitration is pending or contemplated) or under Order 38 of the CPC (in a civil suit) for an independent Indian attachment order over the same assets. The Indian attachment is an Indian court order enforceable by Indian enforcement machinery, independent of the English Mareva order.
The question of interest on foreign judgments enforced in India has two dimensions. First, if the foreign judgment itself awards interest (post-judgment interest at a specified rate), the Indian court enforcing the judgment will generally enforce the interest as decreed. Second, if the Indian court issues its own decree under Section 13 CPC based on the foreign judgment, the Indian court may also award interest on the decretal sum from the date of the Indian decree at the rate the court directs under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Interest Act, 1978 governs pre-suit and pendente lite interest in Indian civil proceedings. Foreign currency judgments enforced in India may involve a currency conversion question — Indian courts convert to Indian rupees at the rate prevailing at the date of the Indian decree. The interaction between a foreign judgment's interest award and Indian interest provisions is a nuanced question that requires specialist advice.
The jurisdiction to execute a foreign decree under Section 44A CPC lies with the Indian District Court or High Court in the district or jurisdiction where: (a) the judgment debtor resides; (b) the judgment debtor carries on business; or (c) the judgment debtor's property (immovable or movable) is situated. For high-value foreign decrees — typically above Rs. 2 crore in Delhi and Bombay — and where the foreign decree relates to a commercial matter, the Commercial Division of the High Court may have original jurisdiction. For Section 13 fresh suits, the same jurisdictional rules apply as for any Indian civil suit — the suit is filed in the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the defendant resides or the cause of action arose. Given that many Indian debtors are based in or have assets in Delhi and Mumbai, the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court are the most commonly used forums for high-value foreign judgment enforcement.
Yes, a foreign default judgment can be enforced in India, but it is more vulnerable to a Section 13 challenge on the "not on merits" ground and the "natural justice" ground. Under Section 13(b), a judgment is not conclusive if it was not given on the merits of the case — and a pure default judgment (where the defendant did not appear and no evidence on merits was led) may be characterised as not being on the merits. Similarly, under Section 13(d), if the defendant was not properly served and had no opportunity to appear, the natural justice exception may apply. The strength of a foreign default judgment in Indian proceedings depends on: (a) whether the Indian defendant had actual notice of the foreign proceedings; (b) whether the foreign court satisfied itself of the legal basis of the claim before entering judgment; (c) whether the foreign court's jurisdiction over the defendant was established. A UK High Court default judgment entered under Practice Direction 12 with proper service (including out-of-jurisdiction service with court permission) carries significant weight in Indian Section 13 proceedings.
The UAE became a reciprocating territory under Section 44A CPC by a Government of India notification dated 17 January 2020. That notification declared the whole of the UAE a reciprocating territory and listed its "superior courts" — the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal First-Instance and Appeal Courts of the emirates, the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, the Dubai Courts, the Ras Al Khaimah Judicial Department, and the courts of the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). A money decree of any of these superior courts — including the Dubai Courts — can now be executed directly in India by filing a certified copy and the prescribed certificate in the competent District Court, which treats it as its own decree. No fresh suit on the merits is required; the judgment debtor may resist only on the limited Section 13 CPC provisos. DIAC and DIFC-seated arbitration awards remain separately enforceable under the New York Convention (Part II, Arbitration Act). The pre-2020 position — that Dubai judgments needed a fresh Indian suit — no longer applies.
Asset dissipation by Indian debtors between the time of the foreign judgment and the filing of Indian enforcement proceedings is a significant practical risk. The remedies are: (1) Urgent Section 9 application under the Arbitration Act (if the matter originated in arbitration) for interim attachment of remaining assets; (2) Order 38 Rule 5 CPC in a Section 13 civil suit — an application for attachment before judgment on the ground that the defendant is about to dispose of property to obstruct execution; (3) if the dissipation constitutes fraud on creditors, a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act to set aside fraudulent transfers; (4) where the Indian debtor is a company, an IBC petition may be appropriate — the Resolution Professional or Liquidator has powers to challenge pre-insolvency transactions (preferences and undervalued transactions under Sections 43–44 IBC). Speed of Indian filing after the foreign judgment is critical — every month of delay is an opportunity for asset dissipation.
The timeline for foreign judgment enforcement in India varies significantly based on the route and the degree of contest. For Section 44A direct execution of a UK or Singapore judgment: an uncontested execution (no Section 13 challenges raised) can complete in 6–12 months from filing the execution petition to an executable decree. If the debtor raises Section 13 challenges, the execution is stayed pending hearing — adding 12–18 months for arguments and decision at the District Court level, with further potential appeal. For Section 13 fresh suits (USA, Canada, Australia, EU judgments): an uncontested civil suit where the defendant does not seriously contest the Section 13 issues can be disposed of in 18–24 months. A contested suit with full hearing can take 3–4 years at the trial court. The actual execution (attachment and sale) after obtaining an Indian decree takes an additional 3–12 months depending on the type and location of assets. Expedited Commercial Court procedures under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 apply to many high-value commercial disputes and can compress timelines substantially.
Yes, provided the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and applied the law correctly. Section 13(c) provides that a foreign judgment is not conclusive if it appears to be founded on a refusal to recognise Indian law where applicable. This means that if the contract was governed by Indian law and the foreign court applied a different law, an Indian court might refuse to recognise the judgment to that extent. However, where the contract expressly chose the foreign court's law as the governing law (and the parties had the contractual autonomy to do so), a foreign court applying its own law as the chosen law is not "refusing to recognise Indian law" within Section 13(c). The practical implication is that contracts between Indian and foreign parties should clearly specify the governing law and jurisdiction — and if a foreign court judgment is anticipated for enforcement in India, the governing law choice and the basis for the foreign court's jurisdiction should be carefully structured to withstand Section 13 scrutiny.
Section 44A and Section 13 CPC specialist. Minimum matter: Rs. 50 Lakhs.
Advocate Subodh Bajpai · Delhi High Court · 8+ Years