Foreign Court

Section 2(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines a foreign Court as a Court situate outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government. Both limbs must be satisfied: location outside India, and absence of establishment or continuance by Central Government authority. A Court outside India set up or continued by the Central Government is therefore not a foreign Court. The judgment of a foreign Court is a 'foreign judgment' under Section 2(6).

The concept matters for recognition and enforcement. Under Section 13, a foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated between the same parties except where it was not pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, was not given on the merits, is founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise Indian law where applicable, was obtained in proceedings opposed to natural justice, was obtained by fraud, or sustains a claim founded on breach of Indian law. Section 14 presumes, on production of a certified copy, that the foreign judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

Section 44A permits execution in India of a decree of a superior Court of a reciprocating territory notified by the Central Government, as if it were a decree of the District Court; execution must be refused if any exception in Section 13 applies. A judgment of a Court in a non-reciprocating country can be enforced only by filing a suit on it.

Two decisions in our library are central. In Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) the Supreme Court refused to recognise a foreign divorce decree granted on a ground unknown to the Hindu Marriage Act by a court lacking jurisdiction under that Act. In International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (2001) it held that an ex parte decree passed without considering evidence is not on the merits under Section 13(b). Examiners test the definition, the six exceptions and Section 44A.