The Bombay High Court has upheld the maintainability of execution proceedings initiated by Malta-based financial institution Fimbank P.L.C. to enforce a judgment of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts against promoters of Bhatia Traders Co. LLC.
Justice Abhay Ahuja rejected the judgment debtors’ preliminary objection that the execution application was not maintainable for want of a certificate under Section 44A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held that the requirements for enforcement of a foreign decree from a reciprocating territory stood substantially complied with.
The dispute arose from a factoring facility extended by Fimbank to Bhatia Traders Co. LLC under a 2018 Purchase Factoring Agreement. The company had availed financing amounting to over USD 2.7 million but defaulted on repayment. Personal guarantees executed by 2 promoters made them jointly and severally liable for the company’s indebtedness. After repeated demands and failed repayment proposals, Fimbank commenced proceedings before the DIFC Courts. In May 2023, the DIFC Court passed a judgment directing the guarantors to pay the outstanding amount, together with interest and costs, and held them jointly and severally liable under the guarantee agreements.
Before the Bombay High Court, the judgment debtors argued that execution could not proceed because the decree holder had failed to produce a proper certificate from the DIFC Court specifying the extent to which the decree had been satisfied or adjusted, as required under Section 44A(2) CPC. They also contended that the documents relied upon by the decree holder, including a “Penal Notice” issued by the DIFC Registry, did not satisfy the mandatory requirements under DIFC procedural rules.
Fimbank countered that the objection was merely an attempt to obstruct execution of a decree that had attained finality. It pointed to communications with the DIFC Registry, a Penal Notice certifying that the judgment was “final and executory,” and a subsequent certificate issued by the DIFC Court in December 2025 expressly confirming that the judgment was conclusive and executable, including for the purposes of Section 44A CPC.
The Court accepted the decree holder’s contention and noted that the decree holder had specifically sought confirmation from the DIFC Court that no payments had been received towards satisfaction of the decree and the DIFC Registry had responded by certifying the judgment as final and executory. The Court further noted that a formal certificate dated December 9, 2025 had also been produced. The Court observed:
“
“Therefore, in the present case, not only the Penal Notice dated 24th October, 2023 but also the certificate dated 9th December 2025, in my view, satisfies the requirements of Section 44-A(2) and therefore, can be considered as a certificate in terms of Section 44-A (2) of the CPC.”
Holding that the objection did not warrant dismissal of the execution proceedings, the Court proceeded on the basis that the decree holder had complied with the statutory requirements for enforcement of a foreign decree from a notified reciprocating territory. The matter is listed for July 06, 2026 to decide the merits of execution and interim applications.
