Supreme Court Holds That A Foreign Judgement Passed In A Summary Trial Without Considering Contemporaneous Evidence Is In Violation Of Section 13 Of The CPC And Hence Not Enforceable In India

The Supreme Court through its judgement dated 21.04.2026 in the matter of Messer Griesheim GMBH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GMBH) v Goyal MG Gases Private Limited9 held that a judgement passed by a Foreign Court in a summary manner, by refusing to grant leave to defend, cannot be regarded as having been rendered on “merits” and is unenforceable under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

In the present matter a foreign judgement passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (“English Court”) was sought to be enforced in India. However, the foreign judgement was passed in a summary proceeding, without considering the contemporaneous documents produced before the court such as documents like balance sheets, minutes of meetings etc.

The court observed that the procedure adopted by the English Court denied fair and effective representation in the case, as the contemporaneous documents such as minutes of board meetings, balance sheets etc. carried statutory significance and were demonstrative of the fact that the facts of the case compelled deeper scrutiny. Therefore, the disposal of such a case in summary jurisdiction in presence of triable issues fell foul of the requirement of 13(b) CPC, which states that a foreign judgement must be rendered on merits.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.