An international technology company secured a substantial commercial judgment in a European court. The defendant – an Indian corporate entity – held its most valuable assets entirely within India. The client needed to convert that judgment into enforceable relief on the ground. What followed was a process far more layered than any straightforward execution proceedings in a common law jurisdiction.
Foreign judgment enforcement in India operates under civil procedure legislation and requires a two-stage analysis: first. Whether the originating court qualifies as a "superior court of a reciprocating territory," and second, whether any of the statutory bars to enforcement apply. Where the foreign court does not sit in a notified reciprocating territory, the judgment creditor must file a fresh suit on the judgment debt in competent Indian courts. The process typically spans twelve to thirty-six months depending on the forum, the volume of contested issues, and the defendant's conduct.
This case study outlines the strategy adopted, the complications encountered, and the transferable lessons that apply to any creditor seeking award enforcement or judgment recognition in India.
Client profile and the core challenge
The client was a mid-sized European technology group with a long-standing distribution agreement governed by the law of an EU member state. The Indian counterparty had defaulted on payment obligations. Arbitration had been considered at the outset but the original contract predated the client's standard arbitration clause. The dispute was therefore resolved through litigation before a European civil court, which issued judgment in the client's favour.
The challenge was immediate and structural. The originating jurisdiction was not listed among India's notified reciprocating territories under civil procedure legislation. That classification is significant. Courts in India treat judgments from reciprocating territories as directly executable decrees. All other foreign judgments – regardless of their merit or the procedural quality of the foreign proceedings – require the creditor to initiate a fresh civil suit. The Indian defendant understood this distinction. It began dissipating liquid assets within weeks of the European judgment being issued.
The client engaged Ferraz & Whitmore with two concurrent objectives: preserve available assets through interim relief, and advance the enforcement action as efficiently as Indian procedural rules permitted. For broader context on litigation and arbitration strategy in India, our dedicated practice page sets out the full procedural environment.
Legal strategy: rationale and sequencing
The team identified three immediate priorities. The first was an application for attachment before judgment. Under India's civil procedure legislation, a court may attach a defendant's property before the final decree where there is credible evidence of an intent to obstruct enforcement. The team gathered and presented contemporaneous evidence of the asset transfers. The court granted interim attachment over the defendant's principal bank accounts and certain receivables within the first month of proceedings.
The second priority was structuring the fresh suit correctly. India's civil procedure legislation sets out six conditions that a foreign judgment must satisfy to be conclusive. These cover: jurisdiction of the foreign court, the judgment being on the merits, compatibility with Indian law, compliance with principles of natural justice, absence of fraud, and consistency with Indian public policy. The team pre-empted each potential defence by building a detailed affidavit record addressing all six criteria before the defendant had filed any response.
The third priority was managing the interface with India's corporate and financial regulatory regimes. The defendant was a listed entity subject to oversight by Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and, in relation to its cross-border payment obligations, the rules of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Any enforcement touching share capital or intercompany accounts required prior review against Companies Act 2013 restrictions and RBI remittance guidelines. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – India's specialist corporate court – had concurrent jurisdiction over certain asset classes held by the defendant. The team mapped each asset category to the correct forum before filing.
Where the client's position intersected with corporate disputes in India, particularly around the defendant's attempt to restructure its holding through an internal merger, those proceedings were coordinated in parallel.
Key milestones and complications encountered
The interim attachment was secured in month one. The fresh suit was filed and numbered in month two. Between months three and seven, the defendant filed a series of procedural challenges. It contested the jurisdiction of the chosen forum, argued that the European court lacked competence over the dispute. Additionally. Raised a public policy objection based on an allegation that the original proceedings had not complied with natural justice standards.
Each objection required a separate round of written submissions and hearings. The public policy argument was the most substantive. The defendant alleged it had not received adequate notice of certain interim steps in the European proceedings. The team obtained certified translations of the original service records and court notices from the European court registry. The Indian court dismissed the natural justice objection after reviewing those materials.
A second complication arose in month nine. The defendant initiated voluntary insolvency proceedings before the NCLT under India's insolvency legislation. This created an automatic moratorium on most civil enforcement actions. The team filed a creditor claim before the Insolvency Resolution Professional within the statutory window and simultaneously challenged the bona fides of the insolvency filing. The NCLT ultimately admitted the insolvency application, which suspended the fresh suit but preserved the attachment order over the pre-insolvency assets.
By month eighteen, the resolution plan proposed by the defendant's management was rejected by the committee of creditors. Liquidation proceedings commenced. The client's admitted claim ranked as an operational creditor. Recoveries in liquidation were partial – as is common in complex multi-creditor Indian insolvency matters – but the attachment secured in month one proved critical. Assets subject to that order were excluded from the general liquidation pool for a period, giving the client a prioritised position in the final distribution waterfall.
To see how comparable enforcement challenges have been handled in a Gulf context, the analysis in our case study on foreign judgment enforcement in the UAE offers a useful parallel.
To discuss how foreign judgment enforcement applies to your cross-border dispute in India, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Transferable lessons for similar cross-border matters
Lesson 1: Determine reciprocating territory status before selecting a dispute resolution forum. Whether the originating court sits in a notified reciprocating territory determines the entire enforcement pathway. A creditor who litigates in a non-reciprocating jurisdiction – even one with a well-developed judicial system – must invest additional time and cost in a fresh suit. Where the commercial relationship is new, agreeing to seat of arbitration in a jurisdiction that benefits from India's position as a signatory to the New York Convention framework may be more efficient. An arbitral tribunal operating under ICC Rules or UNCITRAL rules with a seat in a recognised jurisdiction can produce an award that follows a more direct recognition pathway under India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Lesson 2: Act on asset preservation before the defendant does. Indian civil procedure legislation provides creditor-friendly interim tools. Those tools are most effective when deployed early – ideally at the same time as, or within days of, the primary filing. A defendant who has advance warning of enforcement proceedings, and who understands that a fresh suit rather than a direct execution is required, has time to move liquid assets. The attachment order in this matter was the single most consequential step in the entire case. Without it, the client's recovery in the subsequent insolvency would have been negligible.
Lesson 3: Map the full regulatory perimeter before enforcement begins. Enforcement against an Indian corporate defendant is rarely a single-forum exercise. SEBI, RBI, NCLT, and the competent High Court may each have a role depending on the nature of the assets involved. Companies Act 2013 provisions governing corporate restructuring, and RBI rules on cross-border fund transfers, can each create barriers that delay or modify recovery. A creditor who identifies these intersections in advance – and sequences filings to account for them – avoids the delays that arise when regulatory complications surface mid-proceedings.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our litigation and arbitration practice covers cross-border enforcement, award recognition, and commercial dispute resolution across Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and CIS markets. As a law firm in India matters, we coordinate with specialist local counsel to manage enforcement proceedings before the competent High Courts, the NCLT, and arbitral institutions. Our attorneys have experience before ICC and UNCITRAL-governed arbitral tribunals and understand the interaction between international award enforcement and India's domestic regulatory regime under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Engaging a lawyer with India cross-border experience early in the process is consistently the factor that most determines outcome quality. To explore how we can support your enforcement strategy in India, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.