M/s Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Celem S.A. of Fos 34320 Roujan, France

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 10106 of 2016)Decided 9 Dec 2016
Civil Appeal No. 10106 of 2016
Justice A.K. Sikri · Justice N.V. Ramana

Background

The respondents had sued the appellant (an Indian company) for patent infringement before the English High Court (Chancery Division, Patents Court). After the appellant unsuccessfully challenged that court's jurisdiction, the English Court ordered it to pay costs of £12,229.75 for that failed challenge. When the respondents sought to execute this costs order in India through the District Court at Nasik, the appellant argued the English order was an "interlocutory" order and therefore not executable as a foreign decree, and also objected to interest being charged on the costs. Both the executing court and the Bombay High Court rejected this objection, leading to the present appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the English Court's costs order, even though interlocutory in the sense of being made during the suit, was conclusive and executable on the specific issue of costs it decided, and that foreign judgments/orders disposing of discrete issues can be enforced in India as "foreign judgments" under the Civil Procedure Code's rules on reciprocal enforcement. On the interest question, the Court reasoned that although Indian law (Section 35(3) CPC) was amended to remove automatic interest on costs, this did not disable Indian courts from recognising and enforcing a foreign court's own statutory right to interest on costs (8% under the UK's Judgments Act, 1838) as part of giving full effect to the foreign remedy. It emphasised the principle of reciprocal comity between courts of different nations in enforcing legitimate foreign rights. The execution petition was held maintainable, the High Court's order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Lesson Learnt

An Indian court will enforce a foreign court's costs order, including any interest attached to it under that foreign country's own law, even where Indian procedural law itself does not provide for interest on costs, so long as the foreign order finally and conclusively decided the specific matter in question.

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case