List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, in the case of Messer Griesheim GMBH v. Goyal Gases Private Limited (2026), held that a foreign judgment passed in summary proceedings — without affording the defendant a genuine opportunity to defend — is unenforceable in India under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  

• The court dismissed the civil appeal filed by Messer Griesheim GMBH (now Air Liquide Deutschland GMBH) and upheld the Delhi High Court's refusal to enforce a decree passed by an English Court against Goyal Gases Private Limited.

What was the Background of Messer Griesheim GMBH v. Goyal MG Gases Private Limited (2026) Case? 

• A Share Purchase and Co-operation Agreement was executed in 1995 between the foreign appellant and the Indian respondent for establishing a joint venture in the manufacture and business of industrial gases. 
• The respondent subsequently availed an external commercial borrowing facility from Citibank UK, guaranteed by the appellant. 
• Upon the respondent's default in repayment, the lender invoked the guarantee, and the appellant discharged the outstanding liability of approximately USD 4.78 million. 
• The appellant then sought reimbursement from the respondent by invoking its subrogation rights and initiated proceedings before an English Court. 
• The English Court initially passed a default judgment, which was subsequently set aside; thereafter, a summary judgment was issued directing the respondent to pay the claimed amount along with interest and costs. 
• The appellant filed execution proceedings before the Delhi High Court under Section 44A of the CPC for enforcement of the foreign decree in India. 
• The Delhi High Court refused enforcement, against which the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Summary Judgment Without Opportunity to Defend Violates Natural Justice: 

• Where a dispute involves contested facts requiring deeper scrutiny, disposal of the matter in summary jurisdiction results in premature adjudication and violates the principles of natural justice. 
• When assertions are supported by contemporaneous documents and there is a possibility of oral and documentary evidence being produced by both sides, a court should refrain from proceeding to summary judgment. 

Triable Issues Mandated a Full Trial: 

• The respondent had raised defences supported by contemporaneous documents such as balance sheets and minutes of board meetings, which carried statutory significance. 
• These documents indicated that the payment made by the appellant had been treated as an adjustment against claims rather than a recoverable liability — disclosing triable issues warranting a full-fledged trial. 
• The existence of documentary material with presumptive evidentiary value was sufficient to indicate that the matter could not have been disposed of summarily. 

Foreign Judgment Unenforceable Under Section 13(b) CPC: 

• The summary disposal of the claim in the presence of triable issues effectively denied the respondent a meaningful opportunity to establish its case. 
• The procedure adopted by the English Court was held to be inconsistent with well-established principles of law, applicable both in India and in the UK. 
• Accordingly, the foreign judgment was held to fall foul of Section 13(b) of the CPC and was declared unenforceable in India. 

Clarification on RBI Permission Under FERA: 

• While there is no prohibition on initiating legal proceedings without prior permission under FERA, permission of the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India is required before taking steps to enforce a foreign decree. 
• This interpretation was held to balance the values of access to justice and regulatory control over foreign exchange transactions.

What is Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

• Section 13 of CPC states that a foreign Judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except—  
  • (a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;  
  • (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;  
  • (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;  
  • (d) where the proceedings in which the Judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;  
  • (e) where it has been obtained by fraud;  
  • (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.  
• This section provides that a foreign Judgment may operate as res judicata except in the aforementioned six clauses.  
• (a) Foreign Judgment Not by a Competent Court: 
  • A Judgment of a foreign court to be conclusive between the parties must be a Judgment pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction.  
  • A competent court implies a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.  
  • The court of a foreign country has jurisdiction in the following cases:  
    • Where at the time of the commencement of the action the defendant was resident or present in such country, so as to have the benefit and be under the protection of laws.  
    • Where the defendant is at the time of the Judgment in action, subject or citizen of such country.  
    • Where the party objecting to the jurisdiction of the courts of such country has by his own conduct, submitted to such jurisdiction by  
      • Appearing as plaintiff in the action or counterclaiming, or  
      • Voluntarily appearing as defendant in such action, or  
      • Having expressly or impliedly contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts.  
  • In the case of Bharat Nidhi Limited v. Megh Raj Mahajan (1964), it was held that a foreign Judgment has to be passed only by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction to operate as res judicata in the Indian courts.  
  • (b) Foreign Judgment Not on Merits: 
• In order to be conclusive, the foreign Judgment must be on the merits i.e., which involves the application of the mind of the court to the truth or falsity of the case.  
  • The Actual test for deciding whether the Judgment has been given on merits or not is to see whether it was merely passed as a matter of course, or by way of penalty of any conduct of the defendant or is based upon a consideration of the truth or falsity of the plaintiff's claim.  
• (c) Foreign Judgment Against Indian or International Law:  
  • A Judgment based upon an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize law of India where such law is applicable is not conclusive.  
  • The mistake must be apparent on the face of the proceeding.  
• (d) Foreign Judgment Opposed to Natural Justice: 
  • The Judgment must observe the minimum requirements of natural justice, that is it must give reasonable notice to the parties to the dispute and afford each party adequate opportunity of presenting his case.  
  • It may be noted that the mere fact that the foreign court did not follow the procedure of Indian courts will not invalidate a foreign Judgment on the ground of proceedings being opposed to natural justice.  
  • In the case of Sankaran v. Lakshmi (1974), the Supreme Court held that the expression natural justice relates to the irregularities in procedure rather than to the merits of the case.  
• (e) Foreign Judgment Obtained by Fraud: 
  • It is a well settled principle of Private International Law that if foreign Judgments are obtained by fraud, it will not operate as res judicata.  
  • Fraud in any case, bearing on jurisdictional facts, vitiates all judicial acts.  
  • The fraud may be either fraud on the party invalidating a foreign Judgment in whose favor the Judgment is given or fraud on the court pronouncing the Judgment.  
  • In the case of Satya v. Teja Singh (1975), the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had misled the foreign court as to its having jurisdiction over the matter, although it could not have had the jurisdiction, the Judgment and decree was obtained by fraud and hence inconclusive.  
• (f) Foreign Judgment founded on Breach of Indian LawL: 
  • Section 13(f) does not require that the procedure of the foreign court should be identical with or similar to the procedure of the courts in India.  
  • However, when a foreign Judgment is founded on a breach of any law in force in India, it would not be enforced in India.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, in the case of Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors. (2026), reiterated that in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a High Court is not permitted to reopen or disturb the factual findings recorded by the court below by re-appreciating evidence.  

• The court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant, affirming the decree of specific performance passed by the First Appellate Court.

What was the Background of Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, executed in 1988. 
• The Trial Court denied specific performance and granted only a refund of part consideration. 
• The First Appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed specific performance, holding that the plaintiff had duly proved payment, extension of time, and readiness and willingness. 
• The High Court, in second appeal, declined to interfere, finding that no substantial question of law arose. 
• The defendant-appellant approached the Supreme Court, contending that the First Appellate Court's fact-based findings on readiness and willingness, extension of time, and payment of cash money were erroneous and ought to have been re-examined by the High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Findings of Fact Not Reopenable in Second Appeal: 

• It is settled law that findings of fact, however erroneous, cannot be reopened or disturbed in a second appeal. 
• A second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, and not for correction of factual errors. 
• The argument that the High Court ought to have examined the evidence to ensure the correctness of the First Appellate Court's findings was held to have "no legs to stand." 

No Substantial Question of Law Framed: 

• Unless the High Court frames a substantial question of law, it is impermissible for it to re-appreciate or interfere with fact-based findings, even if they appear erroneous. 
• The findings on readiness and willingness, extension of time, and payment of cash money were held to be neither perverse nor illegal — and thus warranted no interference. 

Affirmation of the First Appellate Decree: 

• The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the decree of specific performance passed by the First Appellate Court.

What is Section 100 CPC?

Statutory Provisions:  

• Section 100 CPC provides for second appeal to the High Court from an appellate decree passed by subordinate courts.  
• Appeal lies only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.  
• The memorandum of appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved.  
• When satisfied, the High Court shall formulate the substantial question of law.  
• The appeal is heard on the formulated question, though the court retains power to hear on other substantial questions of law if necessary. 

Nature and Scope of Jurisdiction:  

• No vested right of appeal exists unless the statute provides for it.  
• The first appellate court is declared as the final court on facts.  
• High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or facts unless a substantial question of law is involved.  
• High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact, however gross the error may appear.  
• High Court is not a second court of first appeal. 

Historical Context:  

• Section 100 was amended in 1976, imposing drastic restrictions on High Court's jurisdiction.  
• Even before 1976, the Privy Council treated the first appellate court as final on facts.  
• The amendment aimed to prevent High Courts from disposing of second appeals without substantial questions of law. 

Mandatory Requirements:  

• Appellant must formulate the substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal (Sub-section 3).  
• High Court must expressly and specifically formulate the substantial question of law (Sub-section 4).  
• The appeal must be heard only on the formulated question (Sub-section 5).  
• Exercise of appellate jurisdiction without fulfilling statutory mandate renders the judgment a nullity. 

Prohibited Grounds for Interference:  

• High Court cannot set aside findings of fact and reappraise evidence.  
• Cannot interfere merely because findings are against the weight of evidence.  
• Cannot interfere only because the first appellate court did not address the trial court's reasoning in detail.  
• Cannot entertain second appeal on grounds of erroneous findings of fact. 

Consequences of Non-Compliance:  

• Second appeal allowed without framing substantial question of law is liable to be set aside.  
• No remand to High Court as appellant cannot benefit from their own wrong of not fulfilling mandatory requirements.  
• Judgment rendered without following proper procedure cannot be sustained.

Exceptions and Flexibility:  

• Appeal may lie from appellate decrees passed ex parte (Sub-section 2).  
• High Court can hear appeal on other substantial questions of law not originally formulated, with recorded reasons (Proviso to Sub-section 5).  
• Formulation of substantial question may be inferred from questions actually considered and decided, though this view has been criticized.

First Appeal vs. Second Appeal under CPC