Published Paper Details:

ABSTRACT Cross border commerce expands very fast in recent decades, & parties litigate abroad more frequently for strategic or practical reasons. Indian courts therefore face growing number of suits & execution petitions based on foreign judgments. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 gives statutory framework under Sections 13, 14 & 44A, but its public policy content remains contested. Section 13 adopts rule of conclusiveness subject to six exceptions, including clause (f) on breach of any law in force in India, which operates like broad public policy filter. Scholars describe this clause as "unsympathetic" because it allows refusal even for relatively technical violations of Indian law, rather than only for violations of fundamental norms. Indian courts, beginning with decisions such as Brijlal Ramjidas v. Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria & Duggamma v/s Ganeshayya, treated foreign judgments as conclusive only on matters directly adjudicated & within jurisdictional & natural justice limits. Later family law cases like Satya v/s Teja Singh & Y. Narasimha Rao v/s Y. Venkata Lakshmi linked refusal of recognition to deception of forum, lack of genuine jurisdiction & evasion of Indian matrimonial policy. More recent commercial decisions, including TransAsia Private Capital Ltd. v/s Gaurav Dhawan, show greater willingness to enforce foreign money decrees where due process & jurisdiction requirements are met. Parallel developments in arbitration law, from Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v/s General Electric Co. through Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v/s Progetto Grano Spa & Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v/s National Highways Authority of India, have narrowed notion of "public policy of India" for foreign awards. This article examines whether similar evolution is visible or desirable for foreign judgments, & proposes re reading of Section 13 that aligns with international best practices while preserving core Indian constitutional & statutory values.