The Convention encourages the choice of the jurisdiction in which to submit action or request for a provisional ruling by mutual agreement between parties, rather than permitting the party bringing the initial claim to unilaterally determine this discretion. Under Article 9(1) of the Hague Convention, if both jurisdictions are signatories to the Convention, then it will require that all proceedings related to the action or request be submitted only before the court in one of those jurisdictions. As well as this, Article 9(2) requires that concurrent proceedings must have stayed if an application is made by a party with the right of access to both courts unless certain prescribed conditions are satisfied.
Guidelines on the application of the Hague Convention were issued by Indian courts in February 2019, which are aimed at lessening any potential issues that could arise as a result of its introduction into India’s legal landscape.
The Indian Ministry of Law and Justice declared on 17th January 2020, the United Arab Emirates to be a ‘reciprocating territory’ in an effort of section 44 of India’s CPC 1908. This places UAE court judgments on par with judgments originating from courts in specific other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
This advancement/evolution has been well communicated/received since it takes off a critical technical obstacle in the enforcement of UAE court judgments in India and brings into effect a significant reciprocal arrangement.
In countries such as India, where the enactment of an office to deal with requests for mutual legal assistance or extradition is not mandatory, it may be difficult to enforce foreign judgments. In this case, especially, reciprocity has been made much easier by the declaration of the UAE as a reciprocating territory. This new development, however, has moved Indian courts towards automatic enforceability rather than an inquiry into whether or not there is reciprocity between India and the UAE.
The declaration of reciprocating territories by the UAE and India has now made it possible for any judgment originating from one country to be enforced in another without re-examination/reviewing its underlying cause. It is also important to note that this development is separate from section 44 designation of a particular country as a ‘reciprocal state’ under CPC 1908. The latter is merely an honorary designation, which only requires the central government of India to publish a list of countries or territories from where reciprocating states issue judgments or awards that are entitled to reciprocal enforcement in India without further scrutiny/assessment by Indian courts. The declaration of reciprocity, on the other hand, is intended to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments originating from countries found ‘reciprocating’. This would be done by Indian courts carrying out an assessment, or making a determination that the foreign judgment falls within the scope of reciprocity.
Reciprocity is now established as one of the prerequisites for the enforcement of foreign judgments in India. Another criterion that must be met is to establish reciprocity between India and the UAE, which has been possible by the declaration (effectively a reciprocal arrangement) of the UAE as a reciprocating territory.
This advancement/evolution has been well communicated/received since it takes off a critical technical obstacle in the enforcement of UAE court judgments in India and brings into effect a significant reciprocal arrangement. It shall be interesting to see how this unfolds in practice, and whether or not these recent developments in Indian judicial policy towards UAE judgments will lead to the more widespread reciprocal declaration of foreign judgments.
