$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgement reserved on: 07.11.2025

Judgement delivered on: 24.12.2025

+ EFA(OS) 20/2025, CM APPL. 69257/2025 (stay), CM APPL.

69258/2025 (Exp.), CM APPL. 69259/2025 (Exp. from filing

lengthy synopsis) & CM APPL. 69260/2025 (Exp.)

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam, Mr. Mohammad Shahyan Khan, Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Mr. Dinkar Ankit Handa and Mr. Darpan Narula, Advocates for

Appellants 1 to 4.

versus

BNP PARIBAS SUISSE SA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Ashim Sood, Mr. Dhirajkumar Totala, Mr. Raghav Seth, Ms. Aditi Bhansali, Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Mr. Akilesh Menezes, Ms. Mrudula Dixit and Mr. Sukrit Seth, Advocates

for R-1.

Mr. Satvik Varma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shantanu Parmar and Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Advocates for R-2 to

R-12.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Execution First Appeal, filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, challenges the Judgment dated 19.09.2025, Impugned Judgment and also seeks quashing of the Order dated 27.10.2025, Impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in case being EX.P. 64/2024, titled “BNP Paribas Suisse SA v. Ashok Kumar Goel & Ors.”. In addition to challenging the Impugned Judgment, the Appellants seek dismissal of the underlying Execution Petition itself.

2. By the Impugned Judgment, the preliminary objections qua the maintainability of the Execution Petition under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, CPC, seeking enforcement of an ex-parte Foreign Decree dated 10.10.2023, Foreign Decree passed by the Sharjah Federal Court, Civil Court of Appeals, United Arab Emirates, UAE, have been rejected by the learned Single Judge. By virtue of the said Foreign Decree, the Judgment Debtors were mandated to remit to the Decree Holder an aggregate sum of USD 118,790,452.52 along with interests and costs.

PREFACE:

3. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the matter at hand, it is apposite to delineate certain foundational aspects to ensure precision in the discussion that follows. The Appellants, together with Respondent Nos. 2 to 12, stood arrayed as Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 15; to make the position explicit, Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 correspond to Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 to 4, while Respondent Nos. 2 to 12 correspond to Judgment Debtor Nos. 5 to 15. Whereas, Respondent No. 1 is the Decree Holder, namely, BNP Paribas Suisse SA, in respect of the Foreign Decree sought to be executed.

4. Further, for the sake of coherence and uniformity in terminology, the nomenclature employed by the learned Single Judge is being adopted herein. Accordingly, the expression “cause country” shall denote the jurisdiction in which the decree sought to be enforced was originally rendered, namely, UAE, and the expression “forum country” shall signify the jurisdiction in which execution of the said decree is presently invoked, namely, India.

5. It is also necessary to set out, at the outset, that the UAE stands notified as a „reciprocating territory’ for the purposes of Section 44A of the CPC, and this position is not disputed by the parties.

6. For a proper appreciation of the factual matrix, it is imperative to outline the hierarchy of the courts in the UAE. The judicial system of UAE consists of the Court of First Instance, which corresponds broadly to the District Courts of India, followed by the Court of Appeal, analogous to the High Courts of India, and culminating in the Court of Cassation, which is the highest appellate forum, comparable to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India. However, given the federal structure of the UAE, the hierarchy is considerably more complex, and the foregoing comparison with the Indian system is intended only as a layman‟s approximation of these two distinct legal frameworks. Understanding o