Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 44-A read with Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for enforcement of a foreign decree passed in a Dubai Court, a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Yadav, J., directed its execution after considering that Dubai is a reciprocating territory and there has been due application of mind in passing the decree.
Background
The decree holder (‘petitioner’) sought enforcement of a decree passed by the Dubai Court of First instance directing the judgment debtor (‘respondent’) to pay AED 9,597,843 along with interest and cost of proceedings from 2019 until realization. The decree arose out of a sub-contract for mechanical, electrical and plumbing works in the Fortunato Development Project in Dubai.
The respondents argued that the decree itself was passed without proper application of mind and, therefore, is not conclusive in nature and not executable in India. He also submitted that that the payment obligation was based on the condition of back-to-back payment from the original employer and since that condition was not fulfilled, the respondent was not obligated to pay.
The petitioner on the other hand had averred that the respondent had received a substantial amount from the principal employer.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that a perusal of the record indicated that an expert appointed by the petitioner had clarified in his report that the respondent had received 91.8 per cent of the completed work’s value from the original employer but had refused to pay the petitioner his dues. In light of the same, the Court observed that the decree had not been passed without proper consideration of merit. There was due application of mind and since Dubai is a reciprocating territory, the Courts in India are entitled to execute the decree in accordance with the law. The Court also stated that the inadequacy or insufficiency of merit cannot be adjudicated upon by the Indian Courts.
Accordingly, the Court allowed for the execution of the foreign decree and directed issuance of notice to the National Asset Reconstruction Company which had a charge on the property sought to be sold in pursuance of execution of the decree.
[Trinity Engineering Services LLC v. Simplex Infrastructures, EX. P. No. 15 of 2024, decided on 6-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Malak Bhatt, Neeha Nagpal, Nitya Prabhakar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate, Sanidhya Kumar, Anirudh Bhat, Nirmal Prasad, Kanak Bathwal, Mohit Garg, Advocates