Foreign judgment conclusiveness and interim injunction require prima facie competence, fairness, and a reliable underlying claim

A foreign judgment can be treated as conclusive only if it survives the exceptions in Section 13 CPC, and the presumption under Section 14 is rebuttable. At the pre-trial stage, the court must be prima facie satisfied that the foreign court was competent and that no disqualifying defect exists before relying on the judgment for a money claim. Here, the arbitration agreement, prior participation in international arbitration over the same dispute, and objections based on the Russian proceedings created serious doubt about the foreign court's competence and fairness. Without a reliable prima facie foundation for the underlying claim, apprehension of asset dissipation in India did not justify interim injunction relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled, at the pre-trial stage, to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with its assets in India on the basis of a foreign judgment, and whether the foreign judgment could be treated as conclusive evidence under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A foreign judgment is conclusive only if it is not hit by any of the exceptions under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the presumption of competence under Section 14 is rebuttable. At the interim stage, the court must be prima facie satisfied that the foreign court was competent and that the judgment does not suffer from any disqualifying defect before treating it as conclusive support for a money claim. Here, the parties' arbitration agreement, the plaintiff's participation in international arbitration over the same dispute, and the rival reliance on Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation created a serious doubt about the Moscow court's competence. The objections based on natural justice and the circumstances in which the Russian proceedings were conducted also prevented the judgment from being accepted as absolute and conclusive evidence at this stage. In the absence of a reliable prima facie foundation for the underlying claim, the apprehension that assets may be transferred out of India was insufficient to justify discretionary injunctive relief.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interim injunction relief, and the foreign judgment could not be treated as conclusive evidence for that purpose at this stage.

---