Delhi High Court, in BNP Paribas Suisse SA v Ashok Kumar Goel and Ors, addressed a longstanding impediment to cross-border judgment enforcement. It held that a foreign decree may be executed simultaneously in different jurisdictions under section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This decision aids effective cross-border recovery, particularly where parallel execution is the only viable option to secure the benefit of a decree. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial comity, emphasising that courts will recognise and enforce foreign judgments in a spirit of mutual respect and international co-operation.
A decree was passed by the Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal, United Arab Emirates (UAE), directing the payment of USD118.79 million to BNP. BNP brought execution proceedings in the UAE and filed a parallel execution petition in Delhi High Court. The judgment debtors objected to the Indian proceedings because execution was pending abroad. It was argued that parallel proceedings violated the principle of comity of courts, particularly when section 44A envisages a sequential process. This requires a certificate to be obtained from the foreign court stating the extent of satisfaction. This implies that execution in India may commence only after completion abroad. The debtors relied on Bank of Baroda v Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that the limitation period for execution in India starts after the conclusion of proceedings abroad.
Rejecting this objection, the court held that section 44A creates a legal fiction that puts a foreign decree from a reciprocating territory on the same footing as a domestic decree. Once the decree holder files the certified copy of the foreign decree and a certificate of non-satisfaction, the decree becomes enforceable in India as if it had been made by a district court. This fiction allows the foreign decree holder to enjoy the same procedural rights under the CPC as a domestic decree holder, including executing in more than one jurisdiction concurrently. The court relied on Prem Lata Agarwal v Lakshman Prasad Gupta, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right to execute a decree concurrently in various courts in India under sections 38 and 39 of the CPC. This emphasised that there is no statutory bar when assets are dispersed across jurisdictions. The court cited ARF SV 1 Sàrl v Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia, in which the Bombay High Court permitted the simultaneous execution of a UAE decree in India.
Distinguishing Bank of Baroda, the court held that the Supreme Court dealt only with the issue of the limitation period for filing an execution petition and not the question of simultaneous execution. Section 14 of the CPC creates a presumption that the certificate of non-satisfaction reflects the decree. The decree is the operative act, the certificate only a procedural requirement, intended to prevent unjust recovery. The lack of a certificate is no jurisdictional barrier. Legislative silence in procedural rights must be read as permission, not prohibition. As long as the decree satisfies the conditions under sections 13 and 44A(2) of the CPC, there is no bar against parallel execution proceedings.
The judgment upholds the principle of judicial comity, with courts recognising and enforcing foreign judgments in a spirit of mutual respect and international co-operation.
The decision provides a more practical, commerce-aligned framework for cross-border enforcement. Allowing decree holders to pursue parallel enforcement across jurisdictions prevents debtors from hiding assets and ignoring judgments. It strengthens recovery, boosts creditor confidence and reinforces comity based on cooperation rather than on restraint.
However, the decision still leaves open procedural questions of how courts across jurisdictions are to co-ordinate to prevent unjust enrichment and over-recovery. Prem Lata Agarwal cautioned that simultaneous execution must be used only in exceptional cases to avoid unnecessary hardship to the judgment debtor, who is otherwise forced to face multiple current attachments. It remains to be seen how far Indian courts are willing to follow Delhi High Court.
Rejecting this objection, the court held that section 44A creates a legal fiction that puts a foreign decree from a reciprocating territory on the same footing as a domestic decree. Once the decree holder files the certified copy of the foreign decree and a certificate of non-satisfaction, the decree becomes enforceable in India as if it had been made by a district court. This fiction allows the foreign decree holder to enjoy the same procedural rights under the CPC as a domestic decree holder, including executing in more than one jurisdiction concurrently. The court relied on Prem Lata Agarwal v Lakshman Prasad Gupta, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right to execute a decree concurrently in various courts in India under sections 38 and 39 of the CPC. This emphasised that there is no statutory bar when assets are dispersed across jurisdictions. The court cited ARF SV 1 Sàrl v Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia, in which the Bombay High Court permitted the simultaneous execution of a UAE decree in India.
Distinguishing Bank of Baroda, the court held that the Supreme Court dealt only with the issue of the limitation period for filing an execution petition and not the question of simultaneous execution. Section 14 of the CPC creates a presumption that the certificate of non-satisfaction reflects the decree. The decree is the operative act, the certificate only a procedural requirement, intended to prevent unjust recovery. The lack of a certificate is no jurisdictional barrier. Legislative silence in procedural rights must be read as permission, not prohibition. As long as the decree satisfies the conditions under sections 13 and 44A(2) of the CPC, there is no bar against parallel execution proceedings.
The judgment upholds the principle of judicial comity, with courts recognising and enforcing foreign judgments in a spirit of mutual respect and international co-operation.
The decision provides a more practical, commerce-aligned framework for cross-border enforcement. Allowing decree holders to pursue parallel enforcement across jurisdictions prevents debtors from hiding assets and ignoring judgments. It strengthens recovery, boosts creditor confidence and reinforces comity based on cooperation rather than on restraint.
However, the decision still leaves open procedural questions of how courts across jurisdictions are to co-ordinate to prevent unjust enrichment and over-recovery. Prem Lata Agarwal cautioned that simultaneous execution must be used only in exceptional cases to avoid unnecessary hardship to the judgment debtor, who is otherwise forced to face multiple current attachments. It remains to be seen how far Indian courts are willing to follow Delhi High Court.
However, until the Supreme Court or parliament intervenes, BNP Paribas stands as a milestone in transnational enforcement.
Bharucha & Partners – Hiral Gupta and Swati Panda
