Bombay High Court Holds DIFC Penal Notice And Certificate Satisfy CPC Requirement For Foreign Decree Execution
The Bombay High Court has rejected an objection by two guarantors of a USD 5 million factoring facility to the maintainability of execution proceedings initiated by Malta-based Fimbank P.L.C. to enforce a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court judgment in India.
Justice Abhay Ahuja held that a penal notice issued by the DIFC Court and a subsequent certificate relating to satisfaction of the judgment fulfilled the requirement of a certificate regarding satisfaction or adjustment of the decree.
The objection was raised by Rajeev Suresh Bhatia and Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia, the Managing Director and Chairman respectively of Bhatia Traders Co. LLC.
The Court held that the DIFC Court's Penal Notice dated October 24, 2023 declaring the judgment “final and executory” and the certificate dated December 9, 2025 certifying it as “conclusive and executable” were sufficient to satisfy Section 44A(2) CPC.
"True that, under Article 7(2) of the Law of the Judicial Authority at Dubai International Financial Centre, Law No. 12 of 2004, the Courts are required to affix the executory formula on the Judgment/Decision, Order or ratified Arbitral Award however, in response to an Application under the provisions of Rule 45.20, a Penal Notice dated 24th October, 2023 certifying that the Judgment under execution is final and executory as required by the provisions of Part 45 of the DIFC Court Rules and the certificate dated 9th December, 2025 entitled “Certificate in relation to satisfaction of Judgment” certifies that the Judgment is “conclusive and executable”.”
The dispute arose from a Purchase Factoring Agreement dated May 17, 2018 under which Fimbank P.L.C. extended a revolving factoring facility of up to USD 5 million to Bhatia Traders Co. LLC. Rajeev Suresh Bhatia and Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia executed personal guarantees securing the facility. After the company defaulted on repayments in 2019-20, Fimbank initiated proceedings before the DIFC Court.
On May 16, 2023, the DIFC Court passed judgment directing the guarantors to pay USD 2.68 million together with continuing interest and costs after finding them jointly and severally liable under the guarantee agreements. The judgment attained finality.
The judgment debtors argued that the execution petition was defective because the mandatory certificate contemplated by Section 44A(2) CPC had not been produced and that the DIFC Court had not affixed the required executory formula.
The Court held that the purpose of the certificate under Section 44A(2) is to prevent double recovery and provide conclusive proof regarding satisfaction or adjustment of the decree. It found that the documents issued by the DIFC Court adequately served that purpose and that no specific format was prescribed under Indian law.
Rejecting the maintainability challenge, the Court held that the correspondence with the DIFC Registry, the Penal Notice dated October 24, 2023 and the certificate dated December 9, 2025 together satisfied the statutory requirement and established that the foreign judgment remained executable and unsatisfied.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the maintainability of the execution proceedings and permitted enforcement of the DIFC Court decree in India.
For Appellant: Advocates Ranjeev Carvalho alongwith Rupesh Geete, Avesh Ganja instructed by Satyaki Law Associates
For Respondent: Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar alongwith Nidhi Singh, Brian Noronha, Amisha Upadhyay instructed by Indian Law LLP