Foreign Company vs. Indian Company: Where Should You Sue?

A 14-Day Pre-Litigation Protocol for Foreign Companies, International Businesses, and Overseas Investors

Table of Contents

By Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate

Enforce foreign judgment in India; execute foreign decree in India; Section 44A CPC; foreign arbitral award enforcement in India; reciprocating territory in India; foreign company litigation in India; Indian jurisdiction for foreign companies; cross-border commercial disputes in India; Section 13 CPC foreign judgment; foreign-seated arbitration in India; Indian asset recovery; Commercial Courts Act in India.

Introduction: The First Question Is Not “Can We Sue?”

When a foreign company has a commercial dispute with an Indian company, the first instinct is often straightforward:

“Can we sue the Indian company in India?”

The answer may be yes.

But that is not the first question I would ask if I were advising the foreign company.

The more important question is

Which forum gives the company the most legally sustainable route from the dispute to an enforceable judgment or award, and ultimately to recovery from assets?

That is a very different question.

A foreign company may have an excellent claim but still make a poor strategic decision if it:

commences proceedings in the wrong jurisdiction;
ignores an exclusive jurisdiction clause;
overlooks an arbitration agreement;
obtains a foreign judgment without considering whether it will satisfy Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
assumes Section 44A CPC applies when it does not;
misunderstands the limitation period for enforcement of a foreign decree;
confuses a foreign court judgment with a foreign arbitral award;
discovers Indian assets only after obtaining judgment;
overlooks an insolvency proceeding against the Indian debtor; or
fails to preserve evidence concerning service, pleadings, and the merits of the foreign proceeding.

The important point is that obtaining a judgment and recovering money are not necessarily the same exercise.

India does not have one comprehensive statute governing every question of private international law. Questions of jurisdiction, recognition of foreign judgments, execution, arbitration, limitation, insolvency, and interim relief arise under different statutes and through judicial precedent.

The purpose of this article is therefore practical.

It sets out a 14-day pre-litigation review that a foreign company can use before deciding whether to litigate in India, litigate abroad and enforce in India, commence arbitration, pursue insolvency remedies, or first undertake further investigation.

Also Read: Foreign Sanctions vs. Indian Law: Can EU or US Sanctions Override an Indian Contract?

Part I—The 14-Day Pre-Litigation Protocol

Day 1 — Preserve the Evidence

Before deciding where to sue, preserve the evidence.

A cross-border commercial dispute can involve records located in several countries:

principal agreements;
amendments and side letters;
purchase orders;
invoices;
correspondence;
emails;
WhatsApp or other business communications;
board approvals;
payment records;
delivery documents;
inspection reports;
technical records;
guarantees;
security documents;
notices of breach;
arbitration correspondence;
previous litigation;
settlement communications, where legally disclosable.

Electronic evidence deserves particular attention.

A communication that appears commercially insignificant at the beginning of a dispute may later become important in establishing:

contractual formation;
performance;
acceptance;
breach;
acknowledgment of liability;
jurisdiction;
limitation;
service;
or the existence of a settlement.

A sensible first step is therefore to place potentially relevant documents and electronically stored information under an appropriate legal hold.

Preserve first. Argue later.

Day 2 — Read the Contract as a Litigation Document

A contract should not be examined merely to determine who breached it.

It should first be examined to determine where and how the dispute is contractually required to be resolved.

Look carefully at four areas.

1. Governing Law

For example:

“This Agreement shall be governed by English law.”

This identifies the governing substantive law, but it does not necessarily answer the separate question of which courts have jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction Clause

Determine whether the contract selects:

Indian courts;
Delhi courts;
Mumbai courts;
English courts;
Singapore courts;
New York courts;
another specified forum.

Then determine whether the clause is:

exclusive;
non-exclusive;
permissive;
or otherwise qualified.

The precise language matters.

3. Arbitration Clause

Identify:

seat of arbitration;
venue;
arbitral institution;
number of arbitrators;
appointment mechanism;
governing law;
procedural rules;
emergency arbitration provisions;
interim-relief provisions.

The seat may be one of the most important provisions in the entire contract.

4. Pre-Dispute Contractual Procedure

Check whether the agreement requires:

written notice;
cure periods;
negotiation;
escalation to senior management;
mediation;
a cooling-off period;
arbitration notice;
or other preconditions.

Failure to comply with a contractual precondition can complicate an otherwise straightforward claim.

Day 3 — Find the Assets Before You Choose the Forum

This is where cross-border litigation becomes a commercial exercise rather than merely a legal exercise.

A foreign company should ask:

Where are the assets from which the eventual judgment can realistically be recovered?

At the preliminary stage, counsel should prepare an initial Indian asset and insolvency map.

Depending upon the facts and lawful sources of information, this may include identifying:

immovable property;
bank relationships;
receivables;
shares and securities;
machinery;
inventory;
vehicles;
contractual receivables;
subsidiaries;
joint ventures;
guarantees;
security interests;
Indian business operations.

This is not a promise that a complete private asset investigation can be concluded within fourteen days.

It cannot.

The purpose is more modest and more useful:

to establish whether there appears to be a credible Indian recovery base.

A foreign company should ideally know this before spending years obtaining a judgment in another jurisdiction.

Day 4 — Identify the Correct Indian Legal Entity

Indian business groups can have complicated structures.

The commercial counterparty may be:

a subsidiary;
a holding company;
a branch;
a joint venture;
a distributor;
a guarantor;
a promoter-controlled company;
or one company within a larger corporate group.

The fact that two companies belong to the same group does not ordinarily make their assets interchangeable.

A judgment against Company A does not automatically permit execution against the assets of Company B.

The corporate structure must therefore be analyzed separately from the commercial relationship.

The questions are:

Who entered into the contract?
Who received the goods or services?
Who owes the money?
Who guaranteed the obligation?
Who owns the relevant assets?
What is the legal relationship between those entities?

These questions can determine the viability of recovery.

Day 5 — Determine Whether an Indian Court Has Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction provisions of the CPC must be examined systematically.

Sections 16 to 19 deal with particular categories of suits and should be considered before moving to the general framework under Section 20.

Section 20 may become relevant where the defendant resides or carries on business within the jurisdiction or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within that jurisdiction, subject to the statutory scheme.

For corporate defendants, Explanation II to Section 20 can become important in determining the relevance of a principal office and subordinate office.

The jurisdiction review should therefore identify:

the defendant’s principal office;
any subordinate office;
the place of contractual performance;
the place where payment was required;
the place of breach;
where material parts of the cause of action arose;
where relevant property is situated;
and whether another statute provides a special forum.

Jurisdiction should be established on facts and law, not merely because the defendant happens to have some commercial presence in India.

Day 6 — Examine the Foreign Jurisdiction Clause Carefully

An exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause should never be dismissed as a technicality.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341, is an important authority concerning foreign jurisdiction clauses and anti-suit injunction principles. The dispute involved an agreement selecting English law and English courts, and the Indian proceedings included an application seeking to restrain the foreign proceedings.

The lesson should not be stated simplistically as

“A foreign jurisdiction clause does not matter.”

Nor is it correct to assume that the existence of such a clause automatically eliminates every possible role for an Indian court.

The proper analysis requires examination of:

the wording of the clause;
whether it is exclusive;
the governing law;
the parties’ contractual obligations;
the nature of the relief sought;
the availability of relief in the selected forum;
the location of assets;
and the possibility of parallel proceedings or anti-suit relief.

A party that ignores the agreed forum may face a separate procedural battle before the merits are ever reached.

Day 7 — Decide: Foreign Judgment or Foreign Arbitral Award?

This distinction is fundamental.

A foreign court judgment and a foreign arbitral award do not enter the Indian legal system through the same route.

Foreign Court Judgment

The principal framework includes:

Section 13 CPC;
Section 14 CPC;
Section 44A CPC where applicable;
Order XXI of the CPC;
the Limitation Act;
and applicable case law.

Foreign Arbitral Award

The relevant framework is principally Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 44 defines a foreign award for the purposes of the New York Convention framework, including the requirement that the award be made in a territory to which the Convention applies by notification of the Central Government.

Section 44A CPC itself expressly excludes an arbitration award from its definition of “decree”, even if that award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.

Therefore

Do not treat a foreign arbitral award as though it were simply a foreign court decree under Section 44A CPC.

The legal route is different.

Day 8 — If You Already Have a Foreign Judgment, Test Section 13 First

Section 13 CPC is the substantive recognition filter.

A foreign judgment is not automatically conclusive in India.

Section 13 identifies circumstances in which a foreign judgment is not conclusive, including where:

it was not pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;
it was not given on the merits;
it appears to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise Indian law where applicable;
the proceedings were opposed to natural justice;
the judgment was obtained by fraud; or
it sustains a claim founded on a breach of Indian law.

Section 14 creates a rebuttable presumption concerning the competence of the foreign court when a duly certified copy of the foreign judgment is produced.

The important distinction is this:

Section 13 is a substantive filter;
Section 44A, where applicable, provides the procedural mechanism for execution.

The executing court does not ordinarily reopen the entire foreign dispute as though it were hearing an appeal on the merits. But it must examine the statutory grounds available under Section 13.

Consequently, before relying upon a foreign judgment in India, counsel should examine the entire foreign procedural history.

Day 9 — Determine Whether Section 44A CPC Is Available

Section 44A CPC is extremely important, but it is not a universal foreign-judgment enforcement provision.

It applies to qualifying decrees of specified superior courts in reciprocating territories, subject to the statutory conditions.

The Central Government declares the reciprocating territory by notification and identifies the superior courts covered by the notification.

For example, by notification dated 17 January 2020, the Central Government declared the United Arab Emirates to be a reciprocating territory and specified particular UAE federal and local courts for Section 44A purposes.

The important point is that one should not merely ask:

“Is the country a reciprocating territory?”

One must also ask:

“Is the particular foreign court covered by the applicable notification, and does the judgment fall within Section 44A?”

Section 44A principally concerns qualifying money decrees.

It excludes, among other things:

taxes and similar charges;
fines and penalties; and
arbitration awards, even if enforceable as decrees or judgments.

The decree-holder must also file the certified copy of the decree together with the certificate concerning the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted.

Section 47 applies from the filing of the certified copy, and the executing court must refuse execution if a Section 13 exception is established. The Supreme Court explained these features in Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Day 10 — Do Not Make a Limitation Mistake

This is perhaps the most dangerous assumption in foreign-decree litigation:

“Once I have a foreign decree, I have twelve years to execute it in India.”

That proposition is unsafe.

The Supreme Court directly considered the issue in Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., decided on 17 March 2020.

The Court held that Section 44A is an enabling provision concerning the manner of execution. It does not itself prescribe the limitation period, nor does the deeming provision automatically import Article 136’s twelve-year limitation period applicable to an Indian decree.

The Court referred to the law of the cause country — the country in which the foreign decree was passed — and the forum country, India.

The Court held that where execution is first pursued in the cause country and remains unsatisfied, the right to apply under Section 44A in India accrues after the execution proceedings in the cause country are finalised, with the Indian application then governed by the three-year period under Article 137.

The judgment also makes clear that merely obtaining the certified copy or satisfaction certificate required for Section 44A does not itself amount to taking execution steps in the cause country.

This produces an important practical rule:

Never calculate the limitation period for enforcement of a foreign decree by looking only at Indian Article 136.
The foreign country’s limitation law may be critical.

The limitation position must be separately examined for:

the original commercial claim;
a foreign suit;
an Indian suit based upon a foreign judgment;
execution of a foreign decree;
and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.

These are not interchangeable questions.

Day 11 — What If the Foreign Judgment Comes From a Non-Reciprocating Territory?

This can fundamentally change the litigation strategy.

If the foreign court is not a qualifying superior court of a notified reciprocating territory, Section 44A does not provide the direct execution mechanism.

A fresh Indian proceeding may therefore be necessary to obtain relief on the basis of the foreign judgment or underlying cause of action, subject to:

Section 13 CPC;
limitation;
jurisdiction;
applicable substantive law;
procedural requirements.

This is why a foreign company should not assume that a judgment obtained in a major commercial jurisdiction automatically becomes an executable decree in India.

The current Gazette position must be checked before filing.

The United Arab Emirates, for example, has a specific notification under Section 44A.

By contrast, countries not covered by an applicable Section 44A notification do not receive the benefit of that direct execution mechanism merely because their courts are sophisticated or commercially important.

Day 12 — The 2026 Supreme Court Decision: Messer Griesheim

For anyone dealing with foreign commercial judgments, the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Messer Griesheim GmbH (now Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) v. Goyal MG Gases Private Limited, 2026 INSC 401, deserves close attention.

The judgment was delivered on 21 April 2026.

The case concerned an English court judgment and subsequent proceedings concerning its enforcement in India.

The Supreme Court ultimately held the foreign judgment unenforceable on the facts of the case after considering the objections under Section 13 CPC.

The important statutory grounds included:

Section 13(b);
Section 13(c);
Section 13(d); and
Section 13(f).

The Court did not find the objections under Sections 13(a) and 13(e) established on the facts.

This distinction is important.

The judgment should not be presented as though the Supreme Court has created a new rule prohibiting foreign summary judgments from being enforced in India.

Rather, it demonstrates how the existing statutory safeguards in Section 13 can operate when the circumstances of the foreign proceedings raise serious questions concerning the merits, natural justice and other statutory requirements.

For a foreign litigant, the practical lesson is significant.

Preserve the complete foreign litigation record, including:

pleadings;
service documents;
evidence;
procedural orders;
opportunities given to the defendant;
applications for summary judgment;
reasons for granting judgment;
admissions;
appellate proceedings.

The Indian enforcement court may need to examine these materials when a Section 13 objection is raised.

A foreign judgment is therefore not merely a document to be filed.

The process by which the judgment was obtained may matter.

Day 13 — If There Is Arbitration, Analyse the Seat First

International arbitration requires a separate decision tree.

The Supreme Court’s decision in BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552, remains fundamental to the Indian law of arbitration and the importance of the juridical seat.

But the present statutory position must also be considered.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act contains provisions allowing specified Indian court assistance even where an international commercial arbitration is seated outside India, subject to the statutory framework and any contrary agreement.

In particular, Section 9 provides for interim measures by a court in appropriate circumstances. The current statutory text permits an application before or during arbitral proceedings and, in the circumstances specified by the Act, after an award but before enforcement.

Therefore, a foreign-seated arbitration does not automatically mean that Indian courts are irrelevant.

But the analysis must distinguish between:

the seat;
the venue;
the supervisory court;
the enforcement court;
interim relief;
and challenge proceedings.

A foreign company should never assume that because its arbitration is seated abroad, every Indian asset-related issue must also be litigated abroad.

Nor should it assume that an Indian court can exercise unlimited supervisory jurisdiction over a foreign-seated arbitration.

The statutory provisions must be examined carefully.

Day 14 — Commercial Courts, Mediation and Insolvency

Even after jurisdiction and enforcement have been analysed, procedural and insolvency issues remain.

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act

Where a commercial suit falls within the Commercial Courts Act and does not contemplate urgent interim relief, Section 12A requires exhaustion of pre-institution mediation before the suit is instituted.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. established the mandatory nature of the requirement.

The Supreme Court subsequently considered the scope of urgent interim relief in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815.

The question is not simply whether an interim application has been added to the plaint.

The court must consider the nature of the dispute, the cause of action and the relief genuinely contemplated.

In Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 696, the Supreme Court again considered Section 12A and the consequences of non-compliance.

Accordingly, before instituting a commercial suit, the foreign plaintiff should determine:

whether the Commercial Courts Act applies;
whether the specified-value requirements are satisfied;
whether Section 12A applies;
whether genuine urgent interim relief is contemplated;
whether pre-institution mediation must be undertaken;
and how the mediation period affects limitation.

The present statutory framework also provides for the mediation period to be excluded for limitation purposes.

The Insolvency Question: Check the IBC Before You Spend Years Litigating

A foreign creditor should always determine whether the Indian debtor is:

already undergoing CIRP;
facing an insolvency application;
subject to a moratorium;
undergoing liquidation;
or otherwise involved in an insolvency proceeding.

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can impose a moratorium with substantial consequences for proceedings against the corporate debtor.

More importantly, the creditor must consider whether its claim has been lodged in the insolvency process.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657, is central to this issue.

The Supreme Court held that an approved resolution plan binds the corporate debtor and relevant stakeholders and that claims which do not form part of the approved resolution plan may be extinguished after approval under Section 31. The principle has subsequently been applied by the Supreme Court in later cases.

The commercial lesson is straightforward:

If the Indian debtor is already in insolvency proceedings, do not treat ordinary litigation as though it were taking place in isolation.

The timing of filing the claim can become critical.

Also Read: File Legal Notice in India: Complete Guide to Drafting, Procedure, Cost & Legal Rights

Foreign Judgment vs Foreign Arbitral Award

A simple distinction is worth keeping in front of the litigation team:

Question	Foreign Court Judgment	Foreign Arbitral Award
Principal framework	CPC	Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Recognition issue	Section 13 CPC	Part II, including Section 48
Direct Section 44A route	Available where statutory requirements are satisfied	No
Reciprocating territory issue	Yes	Convention notification framework applies
Execution mechanism	Section 44A where applicable / other Indian proceeding	Sections 47–49, where applicable
Jurisdictional analysis	Foreign court jurisdiction + Section 13	Seat + arbitration agreement + Convention framework
Indian interim relief	CPC/statutory framework	Section 9 and applicable provisions
Main practical concern	Recognition + execution + limitation	Enforcement + Section 48 objections + assets

Section 44A itself expressly excludes arbitration awards from its definition of decree. The Arbitration Act separately governs foreign awards.

A Practical Country-to-Route Framework

The following should be treated as a starting framework, not a substitute for checking the current Gazette notification and the precise foreign court involved.

Situation	Initial Indian Legal Route to Examine
Qualifying money decree from a specified superior court in a reciprocating territory	Section 44A CPC, subject to Sections 13 and 14
Foreign judgment from a non-reciprocating territory	Fresh Indian proceeding may be required, subject to Section 13, limitation and jurisdiction
Qualifying foreign arbitral award	Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Foreign-seated arbitration involving Indian assets	Seat analysis + applicable Indian interim/enforcement provisions
Indian-seated arbitration	Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Indian debtor in CIRP	IBC claim and insolvency strategy must be considered
Contract containing an exclusive foreign forum clause	Contractual forum, anti-suit/stay and enforcement consequences must be examined before filing in India

The UAE provides an example of why the notification itself matters: the 2020 Gazette notification identifies both the territory and specified UAE courts.

A Worked Example: A ₹20 Crore Claim

Consider a hypothetical situation.

A Singapore company claims ₹20 crore from an Indian company under a commercial supply agreement.

The contract provides for:

Singapore law;
Singapore courts as the exclusive forum;
no arbitration clause.

The Indian company has substantial assets in Delhi and Mumbai.

The foreign company effectively has two strategic possibilities to investigate.

Option A — Obtain Judgment in Singapore

Before choosing this route, Indian counsel should examine:

Is the relevant Singapore court covered by India’s Section 44A notification?
Is the judgment a qualifying money decree?
Are there potential Section 13 objections?
What is the applicable limitation period?
What Indian assets are available?
What documentation will be required?
Is there an Indian insolvency proceeding?

Option B — Consider Proceedings in India

The existence of Indian assets does not automatically create jurisdiction.

The contract, jurisdiction clause, cause of action and CPC provisions must first be analysed.

If the Singapore jurisdiction clause is exclusive, commencing proceedings in India without addressing the clause could create a preliminary procedural dispute.

The right answer therefore cannot be expressed simply as:

“India is better.”

Nor:

“Singapore is better.”

The correct question is:

Which route provides the strongest legally sustainable path from claim to enforceable judgment and ultimately to recovery?

The Five-Stage Cross-Border Litigation Chain

I would advise any foreign company to draw this chain before commencing proceedings:

Contract What did the parties agree?
Forum Where can the dispute lawfully be decided?
Judgment or Award What legal instrument will ultimately be obtained?
Recognition and Enforcement How will that instrument become enforceable in India?
Recovery Against what assets can the money actually be recovered?

If any one of these links is weak, the litigation strategy requires reconsideration.

What a Foreign Company Should Send Its Indian Counsel on Day One

A foreign company seeking an Indian litigation assessment should ideally provide:

Corporate Documents

certificate of incorporation;
constitutional documents;
board resolution or authority;
authorised signatory details.

Contractual Documents

principal agreement;
amendments;
purchase orders;
guarantees;
security documents;
jurisdiction clause;
arbitration clause.

Financial Documents

invoices;
payment records;
bank records;
account statements;
reconciliation of the outstanding amount.

Correspondence

demands;
notices;
admissions;
relevant emails;
contractual notices.

Foreign Proceedings

Where litigation has already commenced abroad:

claim/plaint;
defence;
procedural orders;
judgment;
appeal;
service documents;
execution history;
satisfaction/adjustment certificate where relevant.

Indian Information

Any available information concerning:

registered office;
directors;
subsidiaries;
Indian properties;
banks;
customers;
guarantors;
existing litigation;
insolvency proceedings.

The quality of the first legal assessment depends heavily upon the quality of the documents supplied.

What the 14-Day Review Should Produce

At the end of the preliminary review, the foreign company should ideally receive a concise Cross-Border Litigation and Enforcement Memorandum.

It should answer at least ten questions.

What law governs the contract?
Which forum has jurisdiction?
Is the jurisdiction clause exclusive?
Is there an arbitration agreement?
If there is already a foreign judgment, can it satisfy Section 13?
Is Section 44A available?
What limitation period applies?
Where are the identifiable Indian assets?
Is the Indian company undergoing insolvency proceedings?
What is the recommended procedural route?

The final recommendation may be:

Proceed in India.
Proceed abroad and enforce in India.
Commence arbitration.
Pursue insolvency remedies.
Attempt mediation or commercial settlement first.
Or:
Undertake further factual investigation before filing.

That last option should not be regarded as indecision.

Sometimes the most professional advice is:

Do not file yet. There are facts that must first be established.

Three Mistakes I Would Warn a Foreign Client Against

Mistake No. 1 — “We Have Won Abroad, So India Must Enforce It.”

Not necessarily.

Section 13 remains a substantive safeguard.

The foreign judgment must be examined for issues concerning:

jurisdiction;
merits;
applicable law;
natural justice;
fraud;
Indian law;
and other statutory objections.

The foreign litigation record may therefore become important during Indian enforcement.

Mistake No. 2 — “We Have Twelve Years to Execute the Foreign Decree in India.”

Do not assume this.

The Supreme Court’s Bank of Baroda judgment makes the limitation position considerably more nuanced. Section 44A does not itself create a fresh twelve-year limitation period for a foreign decree. The limitation law of the cause country can become decisive, and Article 137 may govern the Indian application in the circumstances identified by the Supreme Court.

Limitation should be calculated at the beginning.

Not after judgment.

Mistake No. 3 — “The Contract Selects a Foreign Court, So Indian Courts Can Never Be Involved.”

Again, that is too simplistic.

The legal effect of the clause depends upon:

its exact wording;
whether it is exclusive;
governing law;
the nature of the relief;
arbitration provisions;
Indian assets;
interim relief;
and the applicable Indian procedural framework.

The right question is:

What role, if any, can an Indian court lawfully play despite the contractual forum arrangement?

The Senior Counsel’s Perspective

Cross-border litigation is often described as a question of jurisdiction.

In practice, it is more accurately a question of jurisdiction plus enforcement plus recovery.

A foreign company may have a very strong substantive claim and still encounter difficulty because:

it chose a forum without considering enforcement;
it ignored an exclusive jurisdiction clause;
it obtained a judgment vulnerable under Section 13;
it misunderstood limitation;
it assumed Section 44A applied;
it confused a foreign judgment with an arbitral award;
it failed to preserve the foreign procedural record;
it overlooked an Indian insolvency proceeding;
or it discovered too late that the debtor’s meaningful assets were not where it expected them to be.

The correct strategy therefore begins before the plaint, claim form or arbitration notice.

Conclusion: Where Should a Foreign Company Sue?

There is no universal answer.

The answer depends upon the particular:

contract;
governing law;
jurisdiction clause;
arbitration agreement;
seat;
cause of action;
evidence;
assets;
defendant’s corporate structure;
regulatory environment;
insolvency position;
limitation period;
and anticipated enforcement route.

Foreign Court Judgments: Recognition And Execution

For foreign court judgments, the analysis must distinguish:

Issue	Relevant Provision
Recognition	Section 13
Execution	Section 44A

Foreign Arbitral Awards

For foreign arbitral awards, the analysis moves into:

Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Commercial Litigation In India

For commercial litigation in India, Section 12A may affect the route to institution.

For an Indian debtor facing insolvency, the IBC may fundamentally change the recovery strategy.

And throughout the exercise, limitation must be treated as a first-day issue rather than a final procedural formality.

The Real Question Before Litigation

The most useful question for a foreign company is therefore not simply:

“Where can we sue the Indian company?”

It is:

“Which forum gives us the strongest legally sustainable route from the dispute to an enforceable judgment or award, and from that judgment or award to actual recovery?”

That is the question that should be answered before litigation begins.

Professional Legal Assistance

Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

Foreign companies, international businesses, NRIs and overseas investors dealing with Indian commercial disputes may require a case-specific assessment of jurisdiction, enforcement, Indian assets, arbitration and recovery strategy.

Email: [email protected]

WhatsApp: +91 98812 44847

This article is intended for general legal information and does not constitute a legal opinion on any particular dispute. Cross-border matters must be examined on their individual facts, including the applicable Indian statutes, current notifications, contractual provisions, foreign law and the procedural history of any proceedings already commenced abroad. Where foreign law is material, advice from appropriately qualified counsel in that jurisdiction should also be obtained.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can A Foreign Company Sue An Indian Company In India?

Yes. A foreign company can sue an Indian company in India where an Indian court has jurisdiction under the CPC or another applicable law. The contract, jurisdiction clause, place of performance, cause of action, arbitration agreement and location of assets should be examined before filing a suit.

2. Where Should A Foreign Company Sue An Indian Company For Breach Of Contract?

A foreign company should first examine the contract’s governing-law and jurisdiction clauses. It should then consider the place where the cause of action arose, the defendant’s Indian offices, the location of assets, arbitration provisions, limitation and the likely enforcement route before choosing between Indian and foreign proceedings.

3. How Can A Foreign Judgment Be Enforced In India?

Enforcement of a foreign judgment in India depends principally on whether the judgment satisfies Section 13 CPC and whether Section 44A CPC applies. If the judgment is from a specified superior court of a notified reciprocating territory and satisfies the statutory requirements, the Section 44A execution route may be available. Otherwise, a fresh Indian proceeding may be necessary.

4. What Is Section 44A CPC And How Does It Help Enforce A Foreign Decree In India?

Section 44A CPC provides a mechanism for executing certain decrees passed by specified superior courts of reciprocating territories in India. It is subject to statutory requirements, including the nature of the decree and the Section 13 CPC grounds for refusing recognition. It should not be treated as a universal foreign judgment enforcement provision.

5. What Is A Reciprocating Territory Under Section 44A CPC?

A reciprocating territory is a territory declared by the Central Government for the purposes of Section 44A CPC, together with the specified superior courts covered by the relevant notification. Before relying on Section 44A, the current Gazette notification and the particular foreign court should be verified.

6. Can A US, German Or Japanese Court Judgment Be Directly Executed In India Under Section 44A CPC?

A foreign judgment cannot be directly executed under Section 44A merely because it was issued by a foreign court. The particular country and court must be covered by a valid Section 44A reciprocating-territory notification. Where Section 44A is unavailable, a fresh Indian proceeding may be required, subject to Section 13 CPC and limitation.

7. What Is The Difference Between Enforcing A Foreign Judgment And Enforcing A Foreign Arbitral Award In India?

A foreign court judgment is principally dealt with under the CPC, including Sections 13, 14 and, where applicable, 44A. A foreign arbitral award is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Part II and its enforcement provisions. A foreign arbitral award should therefore not simply be treated as a foreign decree under Section 44A CPC.

8. What Is The Limitation Period For Enforcing A Foreign Decree In India?

There is no safe universal rule that every foreign decree has twelve years for execution in India. In Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., the Supreme Court explained that Section 44A does not automatically import India’s Article 136 twelve-year period for a foreign decree. The limitation law of the country where the decree was passed can be important, and Article 137 may govern the Indian Section 44A application in circumstances identified by the Supreme Court.

9. Can An Indian Court Refuse To Enforce A Foreign Judgment?

Yes. Section 13 CPC sets out circumstances in which a foreign judgment is not conclusive in India, including lack of competent jurisdiction, failure to decide the matter on the merits, violation of natural justice, fraud and certain conflicts with Indian law. The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Messer Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. illustrates the importance of examining the foreign proceedings before seeking enforcement in India.

10. What Should A Foreign Company Check Before Suing An Indian Company?

Before commencing litigation, a foreign company should conduct a jurisdiction and enforcement review covering the contract, governing law, jurisdiction clause, arbitration agreement, Indian assets, corporate structure, limitation, Section 13 and Section 44A CPC, Commercial Courts Act and Section 12A, insolvency proceedings and the likely route from judgment or award to actual recovery.

Key Takeaways: Foreign Company Vs Indian Company — Where Should You Sue?

A foreign company can sue an Indian company in India, but jurisdiction should be established by examining the CPC, the contract, the place of performance, the cause of action and any exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause.
Choosing the right forum is not simply a question of where the defendant is located. A foreign company should consider the complete litigation journey: jurisdiction → judgment or award → recognition → enforcement → recovery.
The contract should be reviewed before litigation begins. Governing law, jurisdiction clauses, arbitration agreements, seat of arbitration, notice requirements and dispute-resolution procedures can materially affect where proceedings should be commenced.
Indian assets should be identified at the beginning of the dispute. Knowing where the Indian company’s property, receivables, securities and other recoverable assets are located can influence the litigation and enforcement strategy.
Foreign judgments and foreign arbitral awards follow different enforcement routes in India. Foreign court judgments are principally governed by Sections 13, 14 and 44A CPC, where applicable, while foreign arbitral awards are governed principally by Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 13 CPC is a critical test for foreign judgments. A foreign judgment may not be conclusive in India if statutory grounds relating to jurisdiction, merits, natural justice, fraud, applicable law or other requirements are established.
Section 44A CPC does not apply to every foreign judgment. It provides an execution mechanism for qualifying decrees of specified superior courts in notified reciprocating territories, subject to statutory conditions.
The particular foreign court must be checked, not merely the country. Before relying on Section 44A CPC, the applicable Central Government notification and the status of the particular superior court should be verified.
Limitation for foreign decree enforcement requires special attention. Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. makes clear that Section 44A does not automatically give a foreign decree the twelve-year limitation period applicable to Indian decrees under Article 136.
The 2026 Supreme Court decision in Messer Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. highlights the importance of Section 13 CPC. The circumstances and procedure by which a foreign judgment was obtained can become important when enforcement is sought in India.
A foreign-seated arbitration does not necessarily eliminate the role of Indian courts. Depending on the circumstances, provisions concerning interim relief and other court assistance may remain relevant under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act must be considered before filing a covered commercial suit. Pre-institution mediation may be mandatory where the suit does not genuinely contemplate urgent interim relief.
Insolvency can completely change the recovery strategy. If the Indian debtor is undergoing CIRP or another insolvency process, the foreign creditor must consider the consequences of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rather than pursuing ordinary litigation in isolation.
Winning abroad does not automatically mean recovering in India. A foreign company should assess recognition, enforcement, limitation, Indian assets and insolvency before committing substantial resources to a foreign proceeding.
The most important strategic question is not simply “Where can we sue?” It is: “Which forum provides the strongest legally sustainable route from the dispute to an enforceable judgment or award and ultimately to recovery?”

Summary

Foreign companies suing Indian companies should assess jurisdiction, foreign judgment enforcement, Section 13 and Section 44A CPC, foreign arbitral awards, reciprocating territories, limitation, Indian assets, Commercial Courts Act requirements and insolvency before commencing cross-border litigation.

What's Hot

Tags

Categories