Parallel Execution of Foreign Decrees: Delhi High Court clarifies

• Author(s): Sabah Iqbal Siddiqui
• Date: 15-Oct-2025
• Post in: Arbitration

Enforcing court decrees across borders is vital for international business. Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provides the mechanism to execute money decrees from courts of reciprocating territories as if they were passed by Indian District Courts. In this context, recently the Delhi High Court in BNP Paribas Suisse SA vs. Ashok Kumar Goel & Ors.[1] was called upon to adjudicate the maintainability of an execution petition filed in India under Section 44A of the CPC in light of the parallel execution proceedings pending in the UAE.

The judgment debtors before the Court contended that since the decree holder had already initiated execution proceedings in the UAE, it could not simultaneously pursue enforcement in India. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.[2], the judgment debtors argued that Section 44A of the CPC does not permit dual enforcement and according to their interpretation, the said provision mandates exhaustion of all remedies in the cause country (the country in which the decree sought to be enforced was passed) before resorting to execution proceedings in India.

In addressing the issue, the Court undertook an in-depth examination of Section 44A (1) of the CPC which provides that a certified copy of a decree passed by a superior court of a reciprocating territory “may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court”. Relying upon Sheik Ali vs Sheik Mohamed[3] and the Principles of Statutory Interpretation[4], the Court observed that the said provision creates a legal fiction that places a foreign decree on the same footing as a decree passed by an Indian District Court. That, once this fiction comes into operation, it carries with it all legal consequences including the enforceability of the foreign decree in India under the same procedure, principles applicable to a domestic decree. Court further reiterated that such legal fictions must be given their full intended effect, with the presumption of all facts and outcomes that naturally flow from them, while ensuring that their operation does not extend beyond the specific legislative purpose they were designed to serve.

The Court noted that when the legislature enacted Section 44A of CPC, it could have easily restricted enforcement to sequential execution (first in the cause country and then in India) but it chose not to do so. This silence carries with it the legislative intent to facilitate rather than restrict the decree holder’s rights to enforce the decree. Doing so would not only run counter to the principles of comity of courts, which seek to ensure mutual respect and enforcement of reciprocal decrees, but would violate a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation, that in matters of procedure permissibility must be inferred unless expressly prohibited by law.  

Further reinforcing the permissibility of simultaneous execution, the Court noted that Section 44A(2) of CPC requires a certificate of non-satisfaction which in essence is purely a procedural requirement designed to prevent double recovery or unjust execution. This, however, cannot be read as a limitation to initiate parallel proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the contention of the judgment debtors that execution in India must await the conclusion of proceedings in the UAE is untenable as Section 44A of CPC prescribes no such precondition and accepting such an interpretation would amount to rewriting the procedural framework laid down by the legislature.

The Court rejected the judgment debtor’s reliance on paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. case clarifying that the ratio in the said case was confined to the question of limitation under Section 44A of CPC. The discussion in that case was limited to a situation where a decree holder chooses to execute a decree first in the foreign or cause country, then the limitation period for initiating execution in the forum country would begin only after conclusion of the foreign execution proceedings. The Court emphasised that these observations of the Court were not intended to place a restriction on pursuing simultaneous execution of the decree.

Turning to precedents, the Court observed that in Prem Lata Agarwal v. Lakshman Prasad Gupta[5], the Supreme Court had recognised the decree holder’s right to seek execution in multiple courts concurrently under Sections 38 and 39 of the CPC, emphasising on the absence of any statutory bar to that effect. Further, echoing this, in Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. v. CEC Ltd[6], it was explicitly held that the CPC contains no provision prohibiting simultaneous execution by more than one court. More recently, the Bombay High Court in ARF SV 1 Sàrl v. Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia & Ors.[7] applied the same principle to a UAE decree, allowing its execution in India while foreign proceedings were ongoing and dismissing arguments that such enforcement was premature.

Having considered the above, the Court held simultaneous execution under Section 44A of the CPC being both legally permissible and practically justified. The decree was accordingly declared enforceable in India and execution was directed to proceed with.

This judgment signals India’s ongoing commitment to recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments within the framework of procedural fairness. It also reinforces the integrity and credibility of the Indian justice delivery system thereby ensuring that India’s courts continue to serve as reliable forum for both domestic and international litigants.