Reciprocating Territories — Current Complete List
The Government of India has notified the following countries as reciprocating territories for the purposes of Section 44A CPC. Only judgments from these countries qualify for the direct execution route. For all other countries, including the USA, Canada, Australia, and all EU member states, the Section 13 CPC fresh civil suit is the mandatory route.
The Two Enforcement Routes — Step by Step
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 44A — Reciprocating Territories
- Obtain certified copy of the foreign decree and court certificate (decree unsatisfied, superior court)
- File execution petition before Indian District Court or High Court in debtor's jurisdiction
- Indian court treats foreign decree as domestic decree — proceeds to execution
- Debtor may raise Section 13 exceptions only — limited grounds, high threshold
- Attachment and sale of Indian assets to satisfy decree
Section 13 — Non-Reciprocating Territories
- File fresh civil suit in competent Indian court (Commercial Court / High Court)
- File foreign judgment as conclusive evidence of debt and liability
- Defendant may raise Section 13(a)–(f) exceptions — jurisdiction, merits, natural justice, fraud, public policy
- Indian court passes its own decree if Section 13 challenges fail
- Decree executed through attachment and sale
The Six Section 13 Defences — and How to Defeat Them
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.
S.13(a) — Jurisdiction
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.
S.13(b) — Merits
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.
S.13(c) — Incorrect Law
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.
S.13(d) — Natural Justice
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.
S.13(e) — Fraud
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.
S.13(f) — Public Policy
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.
What Clients Say
“Advocate Bajpai secured an ex-parte attachment order within 48 hours of filing our OA. The speed and precision of Unified Chambers is unmatched in DRT practice.”
“We had written off this NPA as unrecoverable. Unified Chambers reversed the situation through a dual SARFAESI and IBC track. Recovery exceeded our expectations.”
“As an NRI, I needed someone who could handle the entire matter without my physical presence. Unified Chambers managed everything — DRT, DRAT, and High Court — flawlessly.”
Common Questions on Foreign Judgment Enforcement in India
What is Section 44A CPC and which countries are reciprocating territories?
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 certain parts of UAE (Fujairah and Ras Al Khaimah have been specifically notified under separate orders). 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.
What is the Section 44A enforcement process for a UK or Singapore judgment?
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.
What are the Section 13 defences that can be raised against a foreign judgment in India?
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.
Can a US or Canadian court judgment be enforced in India?
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.
Is a foreign injunction or Mareva order enforceable in India?
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.
What interest rate applies to a foreign judgment when enforced in India?
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 prescribed under Order 34 or Order 21 of the CPC. 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.
Which Indian court has jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment?
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.
Can a foreign default judgment (judgment in absence of defendant) be enforced in India?
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.
How does UAE partial reciprocity under Section 44A work for Dubai court judgments?
The UAE position under Section 44A CPC is nuanced. The Government of India has issued specific notifications extending reciprocating territory status to certain UAE courts — specifically Fujairah and Ras Al Khaimah under early notifications. However, Dubai courts (which operate under the broader UAE federal system and the Dubai International Financial Centre) and Abu Dhabi courts do not benefit from a comprehensive reciprocating territory notification covering all their decrees. As of 2026, the practical advice for enforcement of Dubai court judgments in India is to proceed under Section 13 CPC (fresh civil suit) rather than relying on Section 44A direct execution — unless specific legal advice confirms that the particular UAE court and decree type falls within the existing Section 44A notifications. DIAC arbitration awards from Dubai are separately enforceable under the New York Convention route (Part II Arbitration Act) — which is a more straightforward mechanism.
What happens if the Indian debtor has moved assets before the foreign judgment is enforced?
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.
What is the timeline for enforcing a foreign judgment in India from start to final recovery?
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.
Can a foreign judgment for breach of contract specify Indian law be enforced in India?
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.
Enforce Your Foreign Judgment in India
Section 44A and Section 13 CPC specialist. Minimum matter: Rs. 50 Lakhs.
Advocate Subodh Bajpai · Delhi High Court · 25+ Years