Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA, J.

Fimbank P.L.C. – Applicant
Versus
Mr. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia – Respondent
Interim Application No. 3607 of 2025 In Commercial Execution Application No. 55 of 2025
Decided On : 08-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho alongwith Mr. Rupesh Geete and Mr. Avesh Ganja instructed by Satyaki Law Associates, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar alongwith Ms. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Brian Noronha, Ms. Amisha Upadhyay instructed by Indian Law LLP, Advocate.

The requirement under Section 44-A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to file a non-satisfaction certificate from a foreign court is a procedural rule of evidence rather than a mandatory jurisdictional condition precedent. Defects in filing such certificates are curable and do not bar the jurisdiction of the executing court.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 44-A - Execution of foreign decree - Reciprocating territory - Requirement of non-satisfaction certificate - Provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 44-A are procedural and not jurisdictional - Requirement to file a certificate stating the extent of satisfaction or adjustment is an evidentiary rule - Failure to file such certificate at the initial stage is not fatal to the execution application, and defects can be cured by subsequent filing or corroborative evidence of finality and non-satisfaction. (Paras 41, 55, 66, 72, 73)

(B) Execution - Role of procedural law - Procedure is the handmaiden of justice - Where foreign court correspondence and notices confirm that a judgment is final, executory, and conclusive, the essential objective of certifying non-satisfaction is achieved - Courts should not adopt a hyper-technical approach that defeats the objective of enforcing valid foreign decrees. (Paras 67, 70, 74)

Facts of the case:
An application for the execution of a foreign decree was challenged on the ground that the applicant failed to submit a formal certificate of non-satisfaction from the court of the reciprocating territory as mandated by statute. The respondent contended that this omission went to the root of the court's jurisdiction and rendered the execution proceeding non-maintainable. The applicant argued that the requirement was met through alternative documentation, specifically orders clarifying the finality and executory status of the decree, and that the defect, if any, was curable.

Findings of Court:
The court held that Section 44-A(2) does not mandate the filing of a non-satisfaction certificate as a condition precedent for the court to assume jurisdiction. The provision serves to prevent double recovery and acts as a rule of evidence. Procedural requirements must not be used to impede the administration of justice where the judgment is clearly final, executable, and not challenged on merits.

Issues: 1. Whether the filing of a non-satisfaction certificate from the foreign court is a mandatory jurisdictional condition precedent or a procedural requirement. 2. Whether correspondence and formal notices from the foreign registry verifying the executory status of a judgment suffice as a certificate under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement under the statute is procedural. Jurisdictional capacity is vested upon the filing of the certified copy of the foreign decree. Any deficiency regarding the non-satisfaction certificate at the outset can be cured by subsequent production of relevant documentation, as the primary objective is to verify that the decree has not been satisfied or adjusted elsewhere.

Result: Preliminary objection to maintainability rejected; execution proceedings allowed to continue.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding factoring agreement breach and obtaining a foreign decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
2. arguments concerning maintainability of the execution petition under section 44-a(2) of the cpc. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
3. court holds non-satisfaction requirement is procedural; compliance is satisfied via correspondence. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)

ORDER :

ABHAY AHUJA, J.

1. The Execution Application seeks execution of Judgment and Decree dated 16th May 2023 of Dubai International Financial Centre (the “DIFC Court”) in Claim No. CFI-068-2022 for Rs.24,75,81,886/- including interest of Rs.1,52,69,792/- from 16th May 2023 till the filing of the execution proceedings as well as costs of Rs.71,99,931/- alongwith further interest of USD 419.19 daily from 25th July 2024, by which the Respondents/Judgment Debtors were directed to make payment of the aforesaid sums to the Applicant.

2. It has been submitted that the Decree Holder is a financial institution registered and existing under the laws of Malta. The Judgment Debtor No.1 is the Managing Director of Bhatia Tr. Co. LLC (the “Company”) and is an Indian National. The Judgment Debtor No.2 is the Chairman of the Company and is an Indian National as well.

3. The relevant facts leading to the Execution Application are set out as under.

4. Pursuant to a Purchase Factoring Agreement dated 17th May 2018 (the “Factoring Agreement”) between the Applicant/Decree Holder and the Company, the Decree Holder agreed to grant an uncommitted revolving purchase factoring facility up to an amount of USD 5 million (the “Facility”) to the Company, upon the terms and conditions contained in the Purchase Factoring Agreement. As security for the facility, in terms of clause 5.2 of the Factoring Agreement, the Company provided the Decree Holder with the following :

a. Duly executed Personal Guarantee and Indemnity Agreements (Guarantee Agreements) - Pursuant to the Guarantee Agreements dated 17 May 2018, the Judgment Debtors jointly and severally with the Company guaranteed to unconditionally and irrevocably make good the Company's indebtedness to Decree Holder at any time upon first written demand by the Decree Holder apart from interest, costs and expenses containing the following material terms and conditions as under:

2.1 Covenants to Pay

In consideration of the Bank granting the facility and other banking facilities to the Borrower, the Guarantor as duly authorised, without proof of liability or evidence and as primary obligor, hereby jointly and severally with the Borrower, unconditionally and irrevocably guarantee to the Bank the payment of, and undertake on first demand in writing made by the Bank on the Guarantors, to pay the indebtedness to the Bank or any balance thereof at any time due or owing to the Bank.

2.3 Indemnity

As a separate and independent stipulation, the Guarantor agrees to indemnify the Bank on demand for any damages, losses, costs and expenses arising from any failure on the part of the Borrower to perform any obligations arising out of or in connection with the facility and the guarantor so agrees to indemnify the Bank even in the event that any obligation of the Borrower and towards the bank ceases to be valid and enforceable against the Borrower for any reason whatsoever including, but without limitation, any legal limitation or any disability or incapacity of the Borrower. In such an event the Guarantor shall be liable towards the Bank as if that obligation was fully valid and enforceable and as if the Guarantor were the principal debtor in respect thereof and shall pay all sums due to the bank within five (5) days of a demand in writing by the Bank.

3.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYABHAY AHUJA, J. Fimbank P.L.C. – ApplicantVersusMr. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia – RespondentInterim Application No. 3607 of 2025 In Commercial Execution Application No. 55 of 2025Decided On : 08-06-2026

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA, J.

Fimbank P.L.C. – Applicant
Versus
Mr. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia – Respondent
Interim Application No. 3607 of 2025 In Commercial Execution Application No. 55 of 2025
Decided On : 08-06-2026