Telangana High Court clears the way for Sharjah money decree to be executed in India

A division bench of the Telangana High Court has held that a Federal Court of Sharjah decree directing repayment of about AED 9.71 lakh is a conclusive judgment under Section 13 of the CPC and executable in India under Section 44A, rejecting the judgment debtor's pleas of want of jurisdiction, non-service and a non-merits decree.

The Telangana High Court has cleared the path for a Federal Court of Sharjah decree of about AED 9.71 lakh to be executed against an Indian judgment debtor in Hyderabad. A division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the foreign decree is conclusive under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and executable in India under Section 44A, dismissing a Civil Revision Petition that challenged the trial court's attachment order.

The dispute arose out of a soured business arrangement between two Indian-origin businessmen who had set up a medical-equipment trading company, ADICOMED, in the free zone of the Emirate of Sharjah. The decree holder Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva held 90 per cent and the judgment debtor Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor held 10 per cent. By a Share Transfer Agreement dated 11 March 2022, the decree holder transferred his 90 per cent stake to the judgment debtor for USD 135. The decree holder later alleged that the judgment debtor diverted company funds to his personal account, and an accounting expert appointed by the Sharjah Court traced AED 1,079,299.50 in such transfers between 5 April 2020 and 11 March 2022.

Acting on the expert's report, the Federal Court of Sharjah by judgment dated 31 May 2023 directed the judgment debtor to pay AED 9,71,369.55 with five per cent interest and AED 34,550 in legal costs. When payment did not follow, the decree holder secured an order from the Sharjah Civil Enforcement Court permitting execution outside the UAE. He then filed C.E.P. No. 6 of 2025 before the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District, invoking Government of India Gazette Notification GSR 38(E) dated 17 January 2020, by which the UAE stands notified as a reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the CPC.

The Section 13 challenge

The trial court allowed attachment of the judgment debtor's immovable property under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC by order dated 29 January 2026. The judgment debtor's revision before the High Court rested on the four traditional gateways out of foreign decrees in Section 13 CPC: that the Sharjah Federal Court lacked competent jurisdiction (Section 13(a)); that the decree was not on merits (Section 13(b)); that the proceedings violated natural justice for want of summons (Section 13(d)); and that the decree was obtained by fraud (Section 13(e)).

Senior Counsel Sri B. Mayur Reddy argued that the decree holder is a US citizen and the judgment debtor an Indian citizen, that neither had any substantive presence in the UAE, and that the judgment debtor's resident visa had expired in March 2022. Service of summons in India had to follow the Hague Service Convention through the Ministry of Law and Justice, and that route was not used. Summons issued to a Sharjah Free Zone airport address on 11 August 2022 had returned unserved — the office found closed with no signboard — and publication in Gulf News on 19 and 31 August 2022 was insufficient. The judgment debtor's case was that the Sharjah Court had relied solely on an uncontested Accounting Expert Report and passed the decree mechanically, behind his back.

Counsel relied on the Madras High Court's decision in RMV Vellachi Achi v. RMA Ramanathan Chettiar, the Supreme Court in International Woolen Mills v. Standard Wool (UK) Limited and the more recent Rohan Rajesh Kothari v. State of Gujarat, for the proposition that a foreign decree which is not on merits or which violates Indian law cannot be enforced under Section 13.

Why the bench was not persuaded

Senior Counsel Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad for the decree holder pressed three points: that UAE residency was a precondition to incorporating ADICOMED at all; that the Sharjah Court had used multiple service modes including court service, email, courier and two newspaper publications, all permitted under Articles 8 and 9 of the UAE CPC; and that the judgment debtor had admittedly attended the Medlab Middle East Fest at Dubai World Trade Centre between 6 and 9 February 2023 — during pendency of the suit. The judgment debtor had not denied that the email address used in the summons (pavanchandranagoor@gmail.com) was his.

Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, writing for the division bench, took up each Section 13 objection and treated none of them as made out on the record. On Section 13(b), the bench drew the well-settled distinction between an ex parte decree and a decree not on merits. An ex parte decree, the bench held, cannot automatically be presumed to be one without merits. The question is whether the foreign court considered the material placed before it and adjudicated the claim. The Sharjah Court had examined the Accounting Expert Report, the contractual relationship between the parties and the relevant UAE provisions — in particular Article 246 of the Federal Civil Transactions Law, which requires good-faith performance of contracts, and Article 318, which prohibits unjust enrichment. The decree was therefore on merits.

On natural justice and Section 13(d), the bench accepted the decree holder's argument that the UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Service Convention and that service modes prescribed by Articles 9(1) and 9(3) of the UAE CPC — including audio or video recorded calls, SMS, email and publication in two widely circulated newspapers — had been followed. The judgment debtor had not contested the ownership of the email address used. His admitted presence in the UAE during pendency cut directly against the plea of unawareness.

Burden of proving non-residence

The bench was particularly firm on the question of who had to prove what. The judgment debtor pleaded that he was not residing in the UAE during the relevant period. The court treated that as a factual assertion he had to make good, and noted he had failed to produce his passport or any other documentary evidence. "When such a plea is taken," the bench observed, "the burden lies upon the party asserting it to establish the same by cogent evidence." The plea collapsed for want of any such evidence.

Two related findings reinforced this. The judgment debtor never challenged the Accounting Expert Report before the Sharjah Court, nor did he produce any material before the executing court in Hyderabad to show that the report's findings were wrong. He has also not challenged the Sharjah judgment of 31 May 2023 before any competent UAE forum. Allegations of fraud and non-merits, the bench said, do not survive that record.

Order

The bench held that none of the exceptions in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 of the CPC was attracted on the facts. The decree of the Federal Court of Sharjah dated 31 May 2023 is therefore a conclusive judgment, and is executable in India under Section 44A of the CPC. The trial court's order dated 29 January 2026 allowing attachment under Order XXI Rule 54 was found to suffer from no infirmity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous applications closed.