Simultaneous execution of a foreign decree in India is permissible under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure; no statutory bar prevents parallel enforcement when executing judgments from reciprocating territories.

Before delving into the issue at hand, it is necessary to clarify the terminology that shall be employed throughout this judgment. The term “cause country” shall refer to the country in which the decree sought to be enforced was originally passed in this case, the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). Correspondingly, the term “forum country” shall denote the country in which execution of the said decree is now sought in this case, India.

2. The seminal question that arises for consideration is whether a decree passed by a court in a reciprocating territory, namely the UAE, can be simultaneously executed both in the cause country i.e UAE and in the forum country, i.e., India. This issue becomes particularly significant in light of the objections raised by the Judgment Debtors as well as the existence of assets belonging to the Judgment Debtors within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The captioned Execution Petition (“EP”) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Decree Holder, BNP Paribas (Suisse) SA, under Section 44-A read with Order XXI Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for execution of a decree dated October 10, 2023 (“Decree”) passed by the Sharjah Federal Court, Civil Court of Appeal, UAE.

4. By the said Decree, the Judgment Debtors were directed to pay the Decree Holder an aggregate amount of USD 118,790,452.52 (approximately INR 991 crore as on July 5, 2024, when the EP was filed) along with interests and costs. It is necessary to underscore at the outset that UAE has been notified as a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the CPC, and there is no quarrel on this aspect.

5. By way of the instant EP, the Decree Holder seeks execution and reliefs solely against Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 4 (“Goels”), who hold movable and immovable assets within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

6. For the proper adjudication of the present EP, a delineation of the following events and developments is relevant:

i. September 23, 2022: The Decree Holder brought a claim against Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 15 in the Sharjah Court of First Instance.

ii. August 7, 2023: The Sharjah Court of First Instance dismissed the Petitioner’s claim.

iii. September 7, 2023: The Decree Holder appealed to the Sharjah Court of Appeal.

iv. October 10, 2023: The Sharjah Court of Appeal passed the Decree, directing Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 15 to pay USD 118,790,425.52, along with interest and costs.

v. November 6, 2023: The Decree Holder filed an execution petition before the Execution Court, Sharjah, UAE (Case No. 8864 of 2023) (“UAE Petition”), which remains pending with no part of the decreed amount satisfied.

vi. July 31, 2024: Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 15 sought to appeal the Sharjah Court of First Instance’s decision (Case No. 1292 of 2024).

vii. August 2, 2024: The Decree Holder filed the captioned EP before this Court against Judgment Debtors.

viii. September 26, 2024: The Sharjah Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Judgment Debtors.

ix. October 9, 2024: The Sharjah Court of Appeal issued a “Correction of Clerical Error” (“October 9 Correction”), holding Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount, and Judgment Debtor Nos. 6 to 15 were excluded.

x. October 15, 2024: A certificate of no-satisfaction was issued by the Sharjah Court’s Accounting Department, confirming no payments towards the Decree by the Judgment Debtors.

xi. December 18, 2024: The Court of Cassation annulled the October 9 Correction for lack of the Presiding Judge’s signature and remanded the case to the Sharjah Court of Appeal.

xii. January 6, 2025: The Sharjah Court of Appeal issued another correction (“January 6 Correction”), reiterating t