Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Chapter I: Suits in General · JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS AND Res Judicata
Section 13: When foreign judgment not conclusive
In plain words
A foreign judgment is conclusive on matters it decided between the same parties, except where it was not given by a competent court, not given on the merits, based on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to apply Indian law where applicable, obtained in proceedings against natural justice, obtained by fraud, or upholds a claim based on breach of Indian law.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except—
(a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;
(c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of [India] in cases in which such law is applicable;
(d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;
(f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in [India].
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 13
- Government of India v. 1.Vedanta Limited (Formerly Cairn India Ltd.) 2. Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 3. Videocon Industries Limited
- Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- Ahmed Abdulla Ahmed Al Ghurair (Through Their Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Bartholomew Kamya) & Anr. v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
- Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr.
- Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited & Ors.
- M/S Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Celem S.A. of Fos 34320 Roujan, France & Anr.
- Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
- S. Iyyapan v. M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
- Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo
- Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Prithvi Raj
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut
- Sri Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Ors. v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors.
- P.V. Hemalatha v. Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda and Anr.
- M/S. International Woolen Mills v. M/S. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd.
- M.V. Al. Quamar v. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd. and Ors.
- Harendra H. Mehta and Ors. v. Mukesh H. Mehta and Ors.
- Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors. v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Anr.