Messer Griesheim GmbH (now called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) v. Goyal MG Gases Private Limited 2026 INSC 401 - CPC - FERA - Foreign Judgment

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 13 ; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) - Section 47 -In the normal course, a party obtaining foreign judgment can seek enforcement in India if such a judgment qualifies the test laid down in Section 13 of CPC. The Central Government/RBI can exercise its regulatory power under Section 47(3) of FERA and grant its approval before any further steps are taken for implementing the judgment. (Para 83) There is no prohibition for initiation of proceedings and for a determination as regards the liability. However, after obtaining a declaration, for its implementation, obtaining permission from RBI is sine qua non. In other words, without RBI approval, it is not possible to take steps for enforcement of a decree. (Para 81)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 13- The principles governing conclusiveness: (a) Court of competent jurisdiction: A foreign judgment is not conclusive unless it is pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, both under the law of the foreign country and in the international sense recognised under private international law. (b) Judgment to be on Merits: A judgment must be rendered on merits, meaning that the court must have considered the evidence and adjudicated upon the substantive rights of the parties. A decree passed mechanically, by default, or without examination of the objections would not be conclusive. (c) Incorrect View of International Law or Refusal to Recognise Indian Law: A foreign judgment would not be conclusive where it is founded on an incorrect view of international law or refuses to recognise the law of India in cases where such law is applicable. (d) Proceedings Opposed to Natural Justice: A judgment rendered in violation of principles of natural justice, including absence of proper notice or denial of opportunity of hearing, is not enforceable. The requirement of natural justice relates to procedural fairness and not to the correctness of the decision on merits. (e) Judgment Obtained by Fraud: foreign judgment obtained by fraud is not entitled to recognition, and the fraud contemplated includes not only fraud on merits but also fraud relating to jurisdictional facts.(f) Judgment Sustaining a Claim Founded on Breach of Indian Law: foreign judgment sustaining a claim that is contrary to Indian law in force shall not be recognised or enforced in India. (Para 27)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXVII Rule 3 - Even while a Court adjudicates and determines a lis in summary jurisdiction, the Court must determine whether the defendant has a “realistic”, as opposed to a merely “fanciful” prospect of success. A claim can be regarded as realistic only where it carries a degree of conviction and is more than merely arguable. At the same time, the jurisdiction to grant summary judgment is not intended to convert the proceeding into a “mini-trial”, but rather to enable cases where there is no real prospect of success to be disposed of summarily. Nevertheless, the court is not required to accept factual assertions at face value without analysis, Page 29 of 61 particularly where such assertions are contradicted by contemporaneous records. In forming its opinion, the court must consider not only the material actually placed before it at the summary stage but also such evidence as may reasonably be expected to be available at trial. Further, even where a matter does not initially appear complex or where no immediate conflict of fact is evident, the court ought to exercise caution in rendering a final determination without trial if reasonable grounds exist to believe that a fuller investigation into the facts may materially affect the outcome of the case. (Para 40)