The Tirumeniwar case primarily revolves around the principles governing the enforcement of foreign judgments and the scope of public policy as a ground for refusal. The key issue concerns whether the enforcement of a foreign judgment should be refused on public policy grounds, especially when the grounds cited are related to policy considerations rather than fundamental legal principles.

In this case, the court emphasized that the public policy exception should be applied narrowly and restrictively. It clarified that only clear, fundamental, and incontestable public policy issues that would shock the conscience or be wholly injurious to the public good warrant refusal of enforcement (!) . The court underscored that the statutory right to challenge registration under the relevant legislation is a matter of statutory interpretation and cannot be overridden by broader doctrines, especially when the foreign judgment lacks detailed reasoning on public policy issues (!) .

Furthermore, the court highlighted that considerations such as potential impacts on local statutory provisions or policy freedoms do not automatically constitute valid public policy grounds for resisting enforcement unless they reach a level that would offend the fundamental principles of the jurisdiction’s legal system (!) . It reinforced the notion that enforcement should generally be upheld unless there is a compelling and specific public policy reason to oppose it, emphasizing respect for international reciprocity and comity (!) .

Overall, the Tirumeniwar case reaffirmed that the enforcement of foreign judgments must be approached with restraint, and public policy should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances that are clear and unequivocal, rather than on policy considerations that are speculative or peripheral (!) .