You Have a Foreign Money Decree Against an NRI. Can You Actually Enforce It Against Their Indian Assets?

By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 27 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer

A creditor who has already won a money judgment abroad against an NRI, often after a long and expensive foreign proceeding, assumes the hard part is over. It is usually not. Winning the judgment and actually getting paid out of the debtor's property in India are two separate exercises, and the gap between them trips up more creditors than the substantive dispute ever did.

Indian law gives two very different routes depending on where the foreign court sat, and picking the wrong one, or assuming the easier one applies when it does not, can cost a creditor years before they discover the mistake.

Two Routes, and Only One Is Fast

Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows a decree from a court in a notified reciprocating territory to be filed directly as a certified copy before the appropriate district court in India, and executed there essentially as if it were a decree of that Indian court itself. This is the fast route: no fresh trial on the merits, just execution proceedings, subject to narrow objections.

If the foreign court is not sitting in a notified reciprocating territory, Section 44A simply does not apply, and the creditor has to file a fresh civil suit in India, using the foreign judgment as evidence of the debt rather than as something directly executable. That suit proceeds like any other civil suit, with its own limitation period, its own pleadings and, in principle, its own full hearing, even though Indian courts generally will not re-open the merits that the foreign court already decided, subject to the same exceptions that apply under Section 44A.

Which Countries Actually Count as Reciprocating Territories

The list of reciprocating territories is fixed by notification in the Official Gazette, and it is shorter than most people assume. It currently includes the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Fiji, Trinidad and Tobago, Papua New Guinea, Aden, and the United Arab Emirates, which was added by a Ministry of Law and Justice notification dated 17 January 2020 naming specific UAE courts as superior courts for this purpose.

Large trading partners that creditors often assume are covered, the United States being the clearest example, are not on the list. A judgment from a US court, however large and however clearly reasoned, cannot be executed under Section 44A at all, and a creditor holding one has to go the civil suit route regardless of how straightforward the underlying debt actually is. Because this list changes only by fresh notification, a creditor should confirm the current position against the Official Gazette or a recent reporter note before assuming a particular country is or is not covered, rather than relying on an older article.

The Section 13 Exceptions That Apply Either Way

Even a decree from a reciprocating territory is not automatically enforceable. Section 13 of the CPC, which Section 44A expressly imports for this purpose, lets an Indian court refuse to treat a foreign judgment as conclusive where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction in the international sense, where the judgment was not given on the merits of the case, where it rests on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise Indian law in a case where such law was applicable, where the proceedings were opposed to natural justice, where the judgment was obtained by fraud, or where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of Indian law.

A debtor resisting execution will usually run at least one of these grounds, most commonly lack of proper jurisdiction over them or a natural justice complaint about how they were served or heard abroad. A 2026 Supreme Court ruling, reported as 2026 INSC 401, refused enforcement of a foreign summary judgment on the basis that it failed the conclusiveness test under Section 13, a reminder that a foreign court's fast, summary procedure can itself become a ground for an Indian court to decline enforcement, whatever the merits of the underlying claim actually were.

Why NRI Cases Raise Extra Wrinkles

An NRI debtor often has assets spread across more than one Indian state, property in one, bank deposits in another, which matters because execution under Section 44A happens through the district court where the decree is filed, and a creditor needs to think early about where the debtor's attachable Indian assets actually sit rather than filing wherever is convenient and discovering later there is nothing there to attach.

FEMA considerations sit alongside the CPC mechanics here. Immovable property owned by an NRI in India is generally attachable like any other property once a decree is properly before an Indian court, but a creditor planning to repatriate recovered sums abroad after execution needs separate RBI or authorised dealer clearance for that onward remittance, which is a foreign exchange question entirely distinct from the execution proceeding itself and should not be left to the last stage of recovery.

A creditor should also expect the NRI debtor to raise objections about how the original foreign proceeding treated their absence from that jurisdiction, since an NRI defendant who was served abroad and chose not to appear, or who appeared only to contest jurisdiction, often has a genuinely arguable natural justice point by the time the matter reaches an Indian execution court, and that argument tends to surface at exactly this stage rather than earlier.

Practical Steps for a Creditor Holding a Foreign Decree

First, confirm whether the judgment actually comes from a court sitting in a currently notified reciprocating territory, checking the specific court named in the notification rather than just the country, since some notifications name particular superior courts rather than covering every court in that jurisdiction. Second, if it does, file the certified copy promptly in the district court where the debtor holds identifiable, attachable assets, and be ready for the debtor to raise a Section 13 objection rather than assuming execution will go through unopposed.

Third, if the judgment comes from a non-reciprocating jurisdiction, budget realistically for a fresh suit rather than a quick execution petition, and start that suit well within the applicable limitation period rather than waiting to see whether the debtor will pay voluntarily. Fourth, address repatriation clearance as a separate workstream once recovery looks likely, rather than discovering at the point of actually moving money that an additional regulatory step stands between judgment and cash in hand abroad.

Frequently Asked Questions

References & Further Reading

The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 13 and 44A
2. Ministry of Law and Justice notification dated 17 January 2020, declaring the United Arab Emirates a reciprocating territory and naming specified UAE courts as superior courts
3. Supreme Court ruling reported as 2026 INSC 401, decided 21 April 2026, on the conclusiveness test under Section 13 applied to a foreign summary judgment
4. Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and associated RBI regulations on repatriation of funds