Written by Tarasha Gupta, BALLB (Hons), Jindal World Legislation College, and Saloni Khanderia, Professor, Jindal World Legislation College (India)
The Singapore Worldwide Business Court docket (“SICC”) has turn out to be a most well-liked hub for listening to litigation and arbitration of worldwide industrial disputes. Accordingly, many choices from the SICC require recognition and enforcement in India.
On this mild, a latest judgment from the Delhi Excessive Court docket (“HC”) is a big growth offering aid to these wishing to implement the SICC’s judgments in India. In Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd v. Parmod Kumar & Anr,[1] the HC has held that the SICC is a superior court docket below Part 44A of the Code of Civil Process, 1908 (“CPC”). In consequence, its judgments might be immediately executed in India. That stated, the HC finally held the judgment in query to be unenforceable, because it failed to satisfy the assessments in Part 13 of the CPC.
This text breaks down the arguments and authorized context behind the HC’s judgment. It additionally highlights how the case demonstrates flaws in India’s regime, which create difficulties not only for collectors making an attempt to implement overseas judgments in India, but in addition in imposing India’s judgments overseas.
Authorized Background
The process for execution of overseas judgments is prescribed below Sections 13, 14, and 44A of the CPC. Recognition and enforcement of overseas judgments relies on the doctrine of obligation. Accordingly, no overseas judgment might be recognised in India until the judgment-creditor proves to the Court docket that the judgment-debtor owes it an obligation to pay a sum of cash below the legislation of the overseas state the place the judgment was pronounced. This obligation is given impact in India among the many creditor’s initiation of recent authorized proceedings earlier than the Indian court docket by means of an motion in debt.
Some courts are nonetheless conferred with reciprocating standing below Part 44A of the CPC. Thus, judgments of “superior courts” from 12 notified jurisdictions, together with Singapore, are sometimes entitled to computerized enforcement in the event that they in any other case fulfill the necessities of Part 13, below which the overseas court docket should be proven to be internationally competent – each immediately below its personal legislation and not directly, below Indian personal worldwide legislation. Whereas Part 13 supplies a number of grounds for figuring out whether or not a judgment is conclusive, together with contemplating the deserves of the case.[2], the important thing pillar is contemplating whether or not the court docket had the competency to rule on the case. As a common rule, a overseas court docket is taken into account competent whether it is entitled to summon a defendant and topic it to its jurisdiction. That is determined by contemplating inter alia whether or not the judgment-debtor was a topic or resident of the nation on the time of the proceedings, or had in any other case submitted to the jurisdiction of that court docket.
Factual Background in Discovery Drilling
The petitioner is a three way partnership between an organization included below Singaporean legislation, and Jindal Drilling & Industries Restricted (“JDIL”), an organization included below Indian legislation. The respondents had been workers of JDIL who acted as representatives of the petitioner for an settlement with ARKO Group DMCC (“ARKO”) to restore a rig.
Sure disputes and variations arose between the petitioner and ARKO, main ARKO to provoke restoration proceedings in opposition to the petitioner within the Excessive Court docket of Singapore. The case was subsequently transferred to the SICC, earlier than which the petitioner filed its counterclaim. The second modification to this counterclaim arrayed the respondents as defendants, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and fraud. The petitioners claimed it served the respondents with all notices issued by the SICC and subsequent proceedings. Nevertheless, the respondents by no means entered look earlier than the SICC.
Lastly, the SICC handed the topic judgment in favour of the petitioner. Due to this fact, the petitioner filed the current petition looking for enforcement of the judgment in opposition to the respondents.
Applicability of Part 44A of the CPC
The Delhi HC thought-about three issues in deciding if Part 44A of the CPC applies to judgments from the SICC.
First, the HC thought-about whether or not the SICC is a “superior court docket” below Part 44A. The Court docket famous that by a Gazette Notification, the Central Authorities had declared the Excessive Court docket of Singapore as a “superior court docket”. Because the SICC was created as a Division of the Excessive Court docket of Singapore, the jurisdiction of the SICC is simply a subset of the jurisdiction of the Excessive Court docket and didn’t take up a brand new jurisdiction. Due to this fact, SICC can equally be handled as a superior court docket.
Second, the HC thought-about the respondents’ rivalry that the SICC was not a “court docket”. The respondents argued that the SICC doesn’t have the trimmings of a court docket, inter alia as a result of it’s not depending on the idea of territorial jurisdiction, the traditional guidelines are usually not relevant to it, and overseas judges can function judges. The HC rejected this argument, noting that the SICC can’t be denuded of its standing as a “court docket” merely as a result of it follows a distinct process.
Third, it was contended that for an software to be maintainable below Part 44A, it should be accompanied by a licensed copy of the decree with a certificates from the superior court docket that handed the decree stating the extent to which the decree has been glad or adjusted. The petitioner on this case had not submitted such a certificates. As a substitute, they submitted an e-mail issued by the SICC stating that the Guidelines of the Court docket don’t present for issuance of a certificates of non-satisfaction of a decree. It additional confirmed that the topic judgment had not been appealed. The HC famous that the CPC doesn’t present a kind by which the certificates below Part 44A(2) must be framed, and due to this fact the e-mail could possibly be thought-about a ‘certificates’.
Checks Beneath Part 13 of the CPC
Regardless of holding that judgments of the SICC could also be enforced as judgments of a “superior court docket” below Part 44A of the CPC, the Delhi HC finally held the topic judgment as unenforceable because it did not move the assessments below Part 13 of the CPC. Particularly, the court docket held that the SICC didn’t have jurisdiction (as required by Part 13(a)) to listen to the case at hand, for 2 causes.
First, the respondents alleged that their consent to the SICC’s jurisdiction was not taken. They contended this was a pre-requisite for the SICC to take up jurisdiction. The Delhi HC thought-about the Supreme Court docket of Judicature Act, 1969 and Guidelines of the Court docket, to conclude that the SICC requires the events to undergo its jurisdictions. The respondents didn’t accede to the SICC’s jurisdiction (as they weren’t events to the unique proceedings by ARKO in opposition to the petitioners) and likewise weren’t subjected to the jurisdiction of the Excessive Court docket or Supreme Court docket as they weren’t residents of Singapore. The SICC couldn’t have assumed jurisdiction in opposition to them with out their consent.
Second, the SICC has jurisdiction to listen to solely industrial disputes. Part 18D of Singapore’s Supreme Court docket of Judicature Act, 1969 vests the SICC with jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes which might be “worldwide and industrial in nature”. Rule 1(2)(b) of Order 110 of the Guidelines of the Court docket outline a declare to be “industrial in nature” when the subject material of the declare arises from a relationship of a industrial nature. This contains transactions for the provision of products, distribution agreements, joint ventures, and so on.
The HC held that the subject material of the declare at hand was the respondents’ breach of alleged fiduciary duties, which is an motion in tort, primarily based on fraud. Due to this fact, it deemed the petitioners and respondents to not have a industrial relationship, and consequently, the dispute was not “industrial in nature” and the SICC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
Therefore, the respondents met the exception below Part 13(a) of the CPC. The judgment was held to not be conclusive, because the SICC didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter. Aside from contesting the SICC’s jurisdiction, the respondents made two different arguments that the topic judgment failed the varied assessments below Part 13, each of which had been dismissed.
First, a judgment should be given on the deserves of the case as a situation below Part 13(b). Counting on this, the respondents alleged that the topic judgment was not handed on the deserves of the case, particularly contemplating it was handed ex parte. The HC dismissed this argument, observing that the SICC didn’t merely move a proper order by the use of the respondent’s absence, however as a substitute had examined the proof and regarded the reality of the plaintiff’s claims earlier than making its determination.
Whereas the argument below Part 13(b) was not accepted, typically, the requirement of a deserves overview has had the unlucky implication of creating Indian judgments unenforceable in lots of elements of the world, as India is seen as imposing harsher circumstances for enforcement. This implies international locations that depend on reciprocity and equality of therapy for enforcement, together with lots of India’s main commerce companions equivalent to Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the US, don’t recognise or implement Indian judgments. This has hostile implications on the internationalisation of India’s judicial system, because it compels litigants to resolve their disputes earlier than different international locations’ courts to make sure enforcement, or to depend on arbitration.[3]
The second argument raised on this case was rooted within the requirement that the proceedings by which the judgment was obtained should not have been against pure justice, per Part 13(d). The respondents alleged that they had been denied their proper to pure justice as they weren’t served with discover of the counterclaim in accordance with the legal guidelines of India. The HC thought-about {that a} mere procedural irregularity within the service of summons wouldn’t detract from a overseas judgment’s conclusiveness below Part 13, as procedural legislation can not trump substantive rights.
Conclusion and Implications
With the creation of many particular courts for worldwide industrial disputes all over the world, the case is a vital precedent for the worth of those court docket’s judgements and their recognition in India. Although the HC lastly held the topic judgment unenforceable, the popularity of the SICC as a “superior court docket” below Part 44A has essential implications for the convenience of imposing the court docket’s judgments in India sooner or later. The HC’s clarification on the character of the certificates requirement below Part 44A(2) is equally important for overseas courts which do not need provisions for such certificates of their guidelines. That is important, contemplating District Courts throughout India can hear instances of enforcement of overseas judgments below Part 44A. Notably, simply final week, a District & Classes Court docket in Haryana utilized Part 44A to recognise a judgment from a Bangladeshi court docket.[4]
Concurrently, the HC’s observations on the assessments of Part 13 spotlight the lingering difficulties with imposing judgments even from reciprocating territories, as there are a number of exceptions the Indian court docket might contemplate. Particularly, the judgment highlights the significance of the overseas court docket having jurisdiction over the matter, to be ascertained as “competent” below Part 13(a). Nevertheless, this part ought to ideally specify the grounds on which overseas courts shall be construed as internationally competent, to make sure predictability and scale back the pointless anxieties that collectors at the moment expertise whereas looking for execution of overseas judgments in India.
The Court docket’s findings on Part 13(b) are equally demonstrative of how the availability makes enforceability of Indian judgments tough in different jurisdictions. The language of Part 13(b) means that Indian courts conduct a deserves overview of overseas judgments for his or her enforcement. Nevertheless, as this case demonstrates, in actuality, Part 13(b) is simply used to determine whether or not the overseas judgment is procedurally sound below the necessities of Indian legislation. Beneath Indian legislation, a deserves overview doesn’t entail a check of the propriety of the information or the legislation utilized by the rendering court docket. All of the court docket does is verify if proof is examined by the rendering foriegn court docket. Nonetheless, this requirement has been interpreted as an absence of reciprocity in lots of international locations requiring the enforcement regime of the rendering court docket to be just like theirs.[5] Due to this fact, the time is ripe for India to reword Sec 13(b) by means of an modification for the reason that Indian courts are anyhow not conducting deserves overview regardless of legislative intent on the contrary. Transferring ahead, the CPC which regulates enforcement of overseas judgments must also make clear the grounds on which overseas courts shall be construed as internationally competent below Part 13(a) to make sure predictability and scale back the pointless anxieties that collectors at the moment expertise whereas looking for execution of property located in India.
[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1075.
[2] Particularly, the judgment (a) should be pronounced by a Court docket of competent jurisdiction; (b) should be given on the deserves of the case; (c) should not be based on an incorrect view of worldwide legislation or a refusal to recognise the legislation of India in instances by which such legislation is relevant; (d) the proceedings by which it was obtained should not be against pure justice; (e) should not be obtained by fraud; and (f) should not maintain a declare based on a breach of any legislation in pressure in India.
[3] Saloni Khanderia, ‘Thorn within the Lion’s Paw: Révision au fond as India’s Self-Inflicted Damage within the Recognition and Enforcement of Overseas Judgments’ (forthcoming, 2025) Asian Journal of Comparative Legislation.
[4] Shahriar Noor Tutul & Ors. v. Rajvir Singh & Ors., Execution Case No. RBT-86-2020.
[5] Saloni Khanderia, ‘Thorn within the Lion’s Paw: Révision au fond as India’s Self-Inflicted Damage within the Recognition and Enforcement of Overseas Judgments’ (forthcoming, 2025) Asian Journal of Comparative Legislation.
