Foreign judgments (sections 13 and 14)

1. Definitions

• Foreign court, section 2(5): a court situate outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government.
• Foreign judgment, section 2(6): the judgment of a foreign court.

The basis for recognising foreign judgments is the doctrine of obligation: a judgment of a competent foreign court imposes a legal obligation on the defendant to pay the sum or perform the duty adjudged, which the courts of another country will enforce. Comity of nations supports this, but the rule is a rule of Indian private international law, codified in section 13.

2. Section 13: when a foreign judgment is not conclusive

A foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties, or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title, except:

• (a) Where it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Competence here means competence in the international sense, not under the foreign court’s own law. A foreign court has jurisdiction over a defendant who is its subject, who resides in its territory when the action begins, who has submitted to its jurisdiction by appearing or by agreement, or (for immovable property) where the property is situate.
• (b) Where it has not been given on the merits of the case. The court must have considered the evidence and decided the dispute. A decree passed merely because the defendant did not appear, without examining the claim, is not on the merits. The Supreme Court applied this in International Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd. (2001), holding that an English judgment entered on default of appearance, without any evidence being considered, was not given on the merits.
• (c) Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases where that law is applicable. A foreign court that applies its own law to a contract governed by Indian law, refusing to recognise Indian law, falls here.
• (d) Where the proceedings are opposed to natural justice: no notice to the defendant, no fair opportunity of hearing, or a biased tribunal.
• (e) Where it has been obtained by fraud, whether on the court or on the party.
• (f) Where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India: a decree on a gambling debt or for a claim barred by Indian public policy will not be recognised.

3. Foreign divorce decrees

In Satya v. Teja Singh, 1974 INSC 190, (1975) 1 SCC 120, the husband went to Nevada, stayed only long enough to satisfy the residence requirement there, and obtained an ex parte divorce by falsely representing that he was domiciled in Nevada. The Court held that the Nevada court had no jurisdiction, since the husband was never domiciled there, and that the decree was obtained by fraud on the foreign court. It was not recognised.

The leading case is Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, 1991 INSC 142, (1991) 3 SCC 451. The husband obtained a divorce in Missouri on a ground not available under the Hindu Marriage Act, on the strength of ninety days’ residence, with the wife neither submitting to the jurisdiction nor contesting. The Court laid down that the jurisdiction of the foreign court and the ground of relief must be those recognised by the matrimonial law under which the parties were married. The exceptions are: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides, and the relief is granted on a ground available under the parties’ matrimonial law; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction and contests the claim on a ground available under that law; and (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of relief. The Missouri decree fell under none of these and was held unenforceable under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 13.

4. Section 14: presumption

On production of a document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, the court shall presume that it was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record. The presumption is rebuttable by proving want of jurisdiction. It shifts the burden to the party who resists the judgment. The certified copy itself is proved as a public document under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced the Evidence Act, 1872 from 1 July 2024.

5. Enforcing a foreign judgment

• By suit on the judgment. The decree-holder files a suit in India on the foreign judgment, or on the original cause of action, or both. The foreign judgment is conclusive unless one of the section 13 exceptions is shown. Under the Limitation Act, 1963 the period for a suit on a foreign judgment is three years from the date of the judgment.
• By execution under section 44A. A decree of a superior court of a reciprocating territory (notified by the Central Government; the United Kingdom, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia and others have been notified) may be executed in India as if passed by the District Court, on filing a certified copy with a certificate of satisfaction. The District Court must refuse execution if the decree falls within any of the exceptions in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13 (section 44A(3)). “Decree” here means a money decree, not for taxes, fines or penalties, and never an arbitral award (Explanation 2).

A decree of a non-reciprocating country, such as the United States, cannot be executed under section 44A; a suit must be filed on it.

6. Problem

H and W, Hindus married in Bengaluru, move to the United States. H returns to India; W stays and obtains a divorce from a Texas court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. H was served but did not appear. W now wishes to remarry in India and H disputes the divorce. Is the Texas decree valid in India?

Issue. Whether the Texas decree is conclusive under section 13.

Law. Section 13(a), (b) and (c), read with Narasimha Rao: the forum and the ground must accord with the matrimonial law under which the parties married, unless the respondent was domiciled or habitually resident in that forum, or submitted to it and contested, or consented.

Application. The parties married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under section 13 of that Act. H was not resident in Texas when the proceedings were filed, did not submit to the jurisdiction and did not contest. None of the Narasimha Rao exceptions is met. A decree in default of appearance is also not on the merits under clause (b).

Conclusion. The Texas decree is not conclusive and will not be recognised in India. H and W remain married under Indian law; a remarriage by W in India would expose her to the bigamy provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (section 82, formerly section 494 of the IPC). The United States is not a reciprocating territory, so section 44A is not available in any case.

How this is examined

As a short note: “Foreign judgment” (June 2025 and October 2023). For six marks, give the definitions, the six exceptions in a list, section 14, and one line each on Narasimha Rao and section 44A. If it is set as a problem, it is almost always a foreign divorce, answered as above.