Can a Judgment Obtained from a Court in the United

States of America be Enforced Against a Party in

India?
A foreign judgment can be enforced in India in one of two ways:
1. Judgments from Courts in "reciprocating territories" can be enforced directly by filing before an Indian Court an
Execution Decree.
A "reciprocating territory" is defined in explanation 1 to Section 44A of India's Civil Procedure Code as: "Any country
or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as a
reciprocating territory."
The United Kingdom and Canada are among the list of countries which has been declared as "reciprocating
territories."
Presently, the United States of America is not declared as a "reciprocating territory" by the Government of India.
2. Judgments from "non-reciprocating territories," such as the United States, can be enforced only by filing a law suit
in an Indian Court for a Judgment based on the foreign judgment. The foreign judgment is considered evidentiary.
The time limit to file such a law suit in India is within three years of the foreign judgment.
A foreign judgment is considered conclusive by an Indian Court if such judgment:

has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;

has been given on the merits of the case;

is founded on correct view of international law;

is contained in proceedings that followed principles of natural justice;

has not been obtained by fraud; and

does not sustain a claim on a breach of any law in force in India.

Indian courts are overburdened and therefore slow. Enforcing a foreign judgment in India could take years in some
instances, depending upon the complexity of the issues involved in the dispute between the parties.

Whether a Judgment / Decree on a Commercial Matter

obtained in the USA is enforceable in India?
Judgments from "non-reciprocating territories," such as the United States, can be enforced only by filing a law suit in
an Indian Court for a Judgment based on the foreign judgment. The foreign judgment is considered evidentiary.
The time limit to file such a law suit in India is within three years of the foreign judgment.
A foreign judgment is considered conclusive by an Indian Court if such judgment:

has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;

has been given on the merits of the case;

is founded on correct view of international law;

is contained in proceedings that followed principles of natural justice;

has not been obtained by fraud; and

does not sustain a claim on a breach of any law in force in India.

The Indian law is complex in these kind of matters. Therefore, please seek a proper legal advice regarding this
matter.

What law governs the enforcement of foreign

judgments in India?
The Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) governs the execution of decrees, whether foreign or domestic, in
India.
There are two ways of getting a foreign judgment enforced. Firstly by filing an Execution Petition under Section 44A of
the CPC (in case the conditions specified therein are fulfilled). Secondly by filing a suit upon the foreign
judgment/decree.
Under Section 44A of the CPC, a decree of any of the Superior Courts of any reciprocating territory are executable as
a decree passed by the domestic Court. Therefore in case the decree does not pertain to a reciprocating territory or a
superior Court of a reciprocating territory, as notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the decree is
not directly executable in India.
In case the decree pertains to a country which is not a reciprocating territory then a fresh suit will have to be filed in
India on the basis of such a decree or judgment, which may be construed as a cause of action for the said suit. In the
fresh suit, the said decree will be treated as another piece of evidence against the defendant .
Under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a foreign judgment becomes inconclusive and consequently
unenforceable in the following circumstances:

where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a
refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;

where the proceedings in which judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
where it has been obtained by fraud;

where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

Whether a Divorce Decree obtained in the USA is

enforceable in India?
The Indian law is complex in these kind of matters. Therefore, please seek proper legal advice regarding enforcing a
divorce degree given by a USA Court in India. As the the Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Y. Narasimha Rao
versus Y. Venkata Lakshmi (JT 1991 (3) SC 33), observed: The rules of private international law in this country
(India) are not codified and are scattered in different enactments such as the Civil Procedure Code, the Contract Act,
the Indian Succession Act, the Indian Divorce Act, the Special Marriage Act, etc. In addition, some rules have also
been evolved by judicial decisions. In matters of status or legal capacity of natural persons, matrimonial disputes,
custody of children, adoption, testamentary and in-testate succession etc. the problem in this country is complicated
by the fact that there exist different personal laws and no uniform rule can be laid down for all citizens. The distinction
between matters which concern personal and family affairs and those which concern commercial relationships, civil
wrongs etc. is well recognized in other countries and legal systems. The law in the former area tends to be primarily
determined and influenced by social, moral and religious considerations, and public policy plays a special and
important role in shaping it
The Supreme Court of India has observed that Indian courts would not recognize a foreign judgment if it had been
obtained by fraud, which need not be only in relation to the merits of the matter but may also be in relation to
jurisdictional facts. The court has also laid down broad principles to be followed by Indian courts regarding foreign
judgments in matrimonial matters..
Place of Suing S.15 to 21 CPC

Place of Suing:

S.15 to 21 CPC deals with the Court in which a suit is to be instituted, as follows:

S.15

Court in which suits to be instituted

S.16

Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate

S.17

Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts

S.18

Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain

S.19

Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

S.20

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises

S.21

Objections to jurisdiction

S.15

Court in which suits to be instituted

Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. Here competency refers
to pecuniary jurisdiction, which shall be determined by High Court from time to time.

Objects: the main objects of the section is :

-> To reduce the burden of the higher Courts
-> Afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be examined by them in such suits.
The District Judge and Sub-Ordinate Judges all have jurisdiction over all Original Suits., cognizable by the Civil Court
subject to the condition suits are to be instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it.

S.16

Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate

Subject to pecuniary and other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for:
1)

Recovery of immoveable property with or without rents and profits,

2)

Partition of immoveable property,

3)

Foreclosure, sale, redemption in cases of mortgage or charge upon immoveable property,

4)

Determination of any other right or interest in immoveable property,

5)

Compensation of wrong to immoveable property,

6)

Recovery of moveable property actually under attachment,

Shall be instituted in Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. It is also provided that

When suit is filed t obtain relief respecting or compensating any wrong to any immoveable property,

And relief can be entirely obtained through personal obedience.

In above case, the suit can be instituted either at

Court within whose local limit the property is situated.

Court within whose local jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides or conducts business or trade.

Anand Bazaar Patrika V Biswanath Prasad

Held a suit for Specific performance for, contract of sale with possession, it has to be instituted in the Court in
whose jurisdiction the property is situated and can not be filed where cause of action arises.

Seetha Rama Chetty V Kamala Amma

In a suit filed in Bangalore for a property located in Tamilnadu, to determine right and interest in the
immoveable property, Court held that as long as the defendant is residing within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Court,
where the suit is instituted, the suit was maintainable under S.16(d) read with the proviso.

S.17

Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts

Where the subject matter of the suit, immoveable property, is situated within the local jurisdiction of two or
more different Courts, the suits may be instituted in any Court, within whose local jurisdiction, a portion of the property
is situated, and Court is competent to adjudicate over entire suit property, not just portion situated in its jurisdiction.

S.18

Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain

When it is uncertain as regards under which of the two or more Courts, the territorial jurisdiction falls into, and
one of such Courts has also ascertained such uncertainty, then it may proceed to entertain and dispose the suit
related to the property; after recording the existence of such uncertainty.

Where no such statement has been recorded and objection is raised in appeal or revision, the Higher Court
will not allow such objection unless

=> At time of institution of suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to Court was there, and,
=> It has resulted in consequent failure of justice.
In these cases, apart from the uncertain territorial jurisdiction, the Court should be competent as regards

-> nature of suit -> pecuniary jurisdiction.

S.19

Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables

In case of wrong to person or moveables :=> In place where Cause of Action arose
=> In place where the defendant ordinarily resides or carries business or personally works for gain.
Eg
Defendant
A

Hits

Plaintiff

--------------------------> B

Madras

Delhi

Delhi <= Place of Residence/Occurrence

Cause of action lies in Delhi, so can sue in Delhi. The defendant resides in Madras, so can sue in Madras.

S.20

Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises

Subject to afore said limitations, i.e Ss 15 to 19,every suit shall be instituted in Court within whose local limits
of jurisdiction:-

- Defendant(s) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily resides carries business or trade or personally
works for gain.

- any of the defendant ( if more than one) at time of commencement of suit actually or voluntarily resides carries
business or trade or personally works for gain, provided (a) Court gives leave to do so (b) Defendants who dont
reside there accept.

- Where cause of action arises.

For the purpose of S. 20, it is deemed that a Corporation carries on its business at its

- Sole/ Principal office.

- Sub-Ordinate Office, if cause of action arose at such location.

Eg

A resides in Shimla, B resides in Calcutta , C resides in Delhi. A B and C together in Benaras , and B and C together
execute a joint promissory note payable on demand and delivered it to A in Benaras.

A may sue B and C at (A) Benaras where Cause of Action.

(B) Calcutta or Delhi where A/B resides provided other defendant accepts or Court grants
leave.

Patel Roadways V Parsad Trading Company 1992

Where defendant has Principal Office at one place and Sub Ordinate office at another, and Cause of Action
arose, in place where the subordinate office is located, then the place of subordinate office where cause of action
arose is the relevant place for filing the suit and not the place where principal office is located. Held, that, the
explanation to S.20 provides an alternative locus for corporations place of business and not an additional one.

ABC Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies

Held, the jurisdiction of Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs of contract and Cause of Action
arising through connecting factors. Further held, the parties may agree to vest jurisdiction in one of the many
competent Court and such Ouster Clause is valid if
- the clause is explicit , precise and unambiguous.
- not hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act.

S.21

Objections to jurisdiction

No objection as to place of suing is allowed in any Appellate or Revisionary Court , unless

- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
- in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement and
- there has been a consequent failure of justice.
No objection as to competence of Court as to pecuniary jurisdiction will be allowed at any appellate or revisionary
Court unless, conditions mentioned above are satisfied.

No objection as to competence of executing Court will be allowed unless

- such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and,
- there has been a consequent failure of justice.

RSDV Finance Company Ltd V Shree Vallabh Glass Works 1993

Where in respect of a suit the two conditions namely

1)such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.
2) in cases where settlement is arrived, at or before, such settlement , are satisfied and the third
condition namely
3) there has been a consequent failure of justice, has not been satisfied, it was HELD that Court
would not be justified in allowing objection to jurisdiction of Court in appeal.