Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1660

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJ
Messer Griesheim Gmbh – Appellant
Versus
Goyal Mg Gases Private Limited – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026|SLP (C) NO. 4774 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.M. Singhvi
For the Respondents: P. Chidambaram

A foreign judgment obtained via summary procedure without a full trial, despite the existence of genuine triable issues, is not a judgment on merits and violates natural justice. Additionally, the enforcement of such a decree in a domestic jurisdiction is subject to mandatory prior regulatory approval.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 13(b), 13(c), 13(d), 13(f) and 44A - Foreign judgment - Enforceability - Summary judgment passed by foreign court without trial in presence of triable issues - Whether such judgment is on merits - Held, no - A decree passed under summary procedure after refusing leave to defend where triable issues exist is not a judgment on merits - Such procedure denies fair trial and violates principles of natural justice - (Paras 36, 41, 52)

(B) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Section 47 - Enforcement of foreign decree - Regulatory compliance - Distinction between initiation of legal proceedings and steps for enforcement - While adjudication of liability is permitted, enforcement of decree requires prior regulatory permission - (Paras 73, 81)

Facts of the case:
A foreign entity sought enforcement of a summary judgment obtained from a foreign court against a domestic entity regarding a loan guarantee. The domestic entity challenged the enforcement, citing lack of opportunity to defend and violation of regulatory conditions imposed by the central bank during the transaction. The executing court initially allowed enforcement, but the appellate court set it aside.

Findings of Court:
The foreign judgment was found to be unenforceable as it failed to meet the requirements of being a judgment on merits. The summary disposal of the claim despite the presence of substantial triable issues and contemporaneous documentary evidence deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Furthermore, the enforcement of the decree was subject to regulatory approval, which was a mandatory condition precedent.

Issues: Whether the foreign judgment was rendered on merits and in accordance with natural justice, and whether the enforcement was barred by non-compliance with regulatory conditions imposed under the prevailing foreign exchange law.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign judgment obtained through summary procedure without a full trial, where the defendant has raised genuine triable issues supported by evidence, does not constitute a judgment on merits under the relevant procedural code. Furthermore, the enforcement of a foreign decree is subject to regulatory approval, and steps for enforcement cannot be initiated without such permission.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. statutory requirements for enforcing foreign decrees under section 13 cpc. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
2. summary judgment without trial violates section 13(b) cpc. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
3. due process and 'merits' requirement for foreign judgments. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
4. enforcement of foreign judgments requires regulatory permission under fera if applicable. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86)
5. final dismissal of appeal against order refusing foreign decree enforcement. (Para 87 , 88)

J U D G M E N T

Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2 II. Facts ...................................................................................................................... 3 III. Judgment of the English Court and the Execution Proceedings initiated by Appellant ................................................................................................................... 7 IV. Analysis of the Impugned Order ...................................................................... 10 V. Submissions ....................................................................................................... 11 A. On behalf of the Appellant ............................................................................. 11 B. On behalf of Respondent............................................................................... 14 VI. Statutory Scheme Governing Enforcement of Foreign Judgments ............. 16 VII. Issues for consideration ................................................................................. 20 Re: Issue I. Whether the judgment of the English Court is in consonance with the requirements of Section 13 of CPC read with 44A. ................................... 20 Signature Not Verified Re: Issue II. Whether the judgment is unenforceable in view of the conditions Digitally signed by KAPIL TANDON D 18 a : t 2 e 9 : : 2 3 0 1 2 I 6 S . T 04.2i1mposed by RBI in exercise of the statutory power under FERA ................... 39 Reason:

(i) Findings of the English Court on RBI communication dated 03.09.1997 ........................................................................................................ 47 (ii) Findings of the Single Judge .............................................................. 47 (iii) Findings of the Division Bench ........................................................... 48 (iv) True import of Section 47, FERA and RBI conditions dated 03.09.1997…………………………………………………………………………… 50 (v) The stage at which the RBI permission is required .......................... 52 VIII. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 61 I. Introduction

1. Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, In EFA(OS) No. 3/2014, dated 21.12.2022., refusing to enforce a foreign judgment passed by the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division (English Court) for being non-compliant of the requirements of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Two questions have arisen for our consideration. The first relates to the enforceability of the summary judgment on the ground that it violates principles of natural justice for not giving sufficient opportunity to the respondent/defendant. The second relates to the bar of enforcement in view of the conditional prior permission given by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA).

2.1 For the reasons to follow, we have explained how shifting from its ‘default judgment’ to a summary jurisdiction and proceeding to decree the

suit filed by appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1660

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJMesser Griesheim Gmbh – AppellantVersusGoyal Mg Gases Private Limited – RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026|SLP (C) NO. 4774 OF 2023

Cases Referred (5)

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJ
Messer Griesheim Gmbh – Appellant
Versus
Goyal Mg Gases Private Limited – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026|SLP (C) NO. 4774 OF 2023