Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Messers Krish Technologies Regd. Office - Petitioner
Versus
Micronova Singapore Pte Ltd. – Respondents
C.R.P.No.4701 of 2017
Decided On : 13-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.K.Shanmughakani
For the Respondent: Mr.D.Baskar
A foreign judgment is enforceable in India only if it has been decided on its merits; mere default does not suffice to meet legal requirements for enforceability.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Sections 13 and 44A - Enforcement of foreign decree - The decree from the Singapore court does not satisfy the requirements of executable judgments under Indian law as it was not rendered on the merits of the case, leading the court to conclude it is not enforceable. (Paras 10, 14, 30, and 36)
(B) Comity of Nations - The principle of comity must respect the provisions of Indian law when dealing with foreign judgments; a decree must satisfy specific legislative requirements to be executed in India. (Paras 17, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the execution of a foreign decree obtained in Singapore for breach of contract, asserting that the decree did not meet the criteria set by Indian laws for enforcement.
Findings of Court:
The court found the foreign judgment had not been granted after consideration of the merits as such, making it inexecutable under the provisions of Indian law.
Issues: The key issue was whether the foreign judgment complied with Sections 13 and 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a foreign judgment must be based on merits to be executed in India; the judgment from Singapore, having been issued without addressing the merits, fails to meet this standard.
Result: Revision allowed; the order of the executing court is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the dispute and contract. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details on execution and non-appearance in singapore. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court analysis of jurisdiction and merit requirements. (Para 7 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. discussion on foreign judgment validity. (Para 13 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. precedent on judgments not on merit. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. comity of courts and its limits. (Para 28 , 29 , 32) |
| 7. final judgment and dismissal of execution. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu in E.P.No.46 of 2015 in M.C.No.7349 of 2010.
2. E.P.No.46 of 2015 came to be presented before the learned Principal District Judge at Kancheepuram on the strength of a decree obtained in M.C.No.7349 of 2010 dated 15.07.2010. M.C.No.7349/10/M was presented before the Subordinate Court in the Republic of Singapore claiming a sum of US$20358. It was on the basis of an alleged breach of contract between the parties to this revision.
3. The respondent herein claimed that it is a leading distributor of electronic components to various companies in India and other parts of the world. On the representation of the civil revision petitioner, the respondent had placed orders from Singapore to the petitioner. In terms of the contract, the civil revision petitioner had agreed to supply materials, which answer to a particular standard and specification, within a particular period of time. According to the respondent, though the civil revision petitioner sent the materials to Singapore, they did not answer the specifications, nor was it within the time-line. This had resulted in the rejection of materials by the respondent's customers and also in shortfall of goods. Demanding compensation, the respondent issued a pre-suit notice. The petitioner herein, on receipt of the pre-suit notice, denied the allegations and issued a suitable reply. As the respondent was not satisfied with the reply, he presented the aforesaid suit.
4. Following the procedure of the Singapore Courts, the Deputy Registrar of that court issued summons to the Civil Revision Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the summons were served. The civil revision petitioner did not enter appearance in Singapore. Invoking Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure prevalent in the Singapore during the relevant time read with Form 79, the learned Subordinate Judge in Singapore passed the following order :
“No appearance having been entered by the above named defendants herein, IT IS THIS DAY ADJUDGED that the above named defendant do pay to the Plaintiffs:-
1) The sum of US$20,358.00 to be paid to the Plaintiffs;
2) Interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum on the above sum from the date of Writ of Summons until full payment;
3) Costs of S$ 1987.80."
5. As the decree remained unsatisfied, the respondent moved the Principal District Judge by way of execution petition. It is not in dispute, across the Bar, that Singapore, being a reciprocating territory with India, a decree passed by a Court in Singapore can be executed directly without going through the process of conversion of the decree so obtained into a decree passed by the Indian Courts. On being served with the summons in the execution petition, the civil revision petitioner presented an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. The short and simple point that was urged before the Trial Court was that the decree does not comply with the requirements of Section 44A read with Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore inexecutable in India.
7. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned executing Judge held, (a) It is the duty of the Judgment Debtor to prove that the goods had been supplied by him in Singapore as per the contract.
(b) As an executing Court, the Court cannot go behind the decree and therefore, “prima facie” , the decree passed by the Singapore Court is deemed to be a competent
