United Arab Emirates as a Reciprocating Territory: The 2026 Guide to Enforcing UAE Judgments in India
India and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) share robust diplomatic and trade relations that have grown exponentially over recent decades. While the countries entered into a bilateral "Agreement on Juridical and Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters" in October 1999, its practical enforcement regarding judgments remained limited for nearly twenty years.
A paradigm shift occurred with the issuance of Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 36 of 2020 by the Ministry of Law and Justice, which officially declared the UAE a "Reciprocating Territory" under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). In the years bridging 2020 to 2026, this singular notification has fundamentally transformed cross-border debt recovery, insolvency proceedings, and commercial dispute resolution between the two nations.
1. The Legal Mechanics: Section 44A of the CPC
Historically, a judgment delivered in a foreign country possessed no direct operational power in India absent a specific international arrangement. Under traditional civil procedure, a party holding a foreign decree from a non-reciprocating country had to file a completely fresh civil suit in an Indian court, utilizing the foreign judgment merely as evidentiary backing to establish a cause of action. This process was notoriously cumbersome, expensive, and subject to immense judicial delays.
Note on Exclusions: Explanation 2 of Section 44A restricts this direct execution specifically to decrees for the payment of money. It explicitly excludes sums payable in respect of taxes, fines, or penalties. Furthermore, arbitral awards cannot be executed under Section 44A; foreign arbitral awards are instead governed by Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (enforcing the New York Convention).
2. Identifying the UAE "Superior Courts"
The Gazette Notification specifically identified which judicial bodies within the UAE qualify as "Superior Courts" for the purposes of Section 44A. A decree must originate from one of these institutions to qualify for direct execution in India:
- Federal Courts: The Federal Supreme Court; Federal, First Instance, and Appeals Courts in the Emirates of Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain, and Fujairah.
- Local Courts: Abu Dhabi Judicial Department; Dubai Courts; and the Ras Al Khaimah Judicial Department.
- Specialized Financial Centers: Crucially, the notification includes the Courts of Abu Dhabi Global Markets (ADGM) and the Courts of the Dubai International Financial Center (DIFC).
3. The Strict Test of Admissibility (Section 13 CPC)
While Section 44A provides the procedural pathway for direct execution, the foreign decree is not immune to scrutiny. The decree must rigorously meet the conditions laid down in Section 13 of the CPC, which dictates when a foreign judgment is considered "conclusive".
An Indian executing court will refuse to enforce a UAE judgment if the judgment debtor can successfully prove that the decree falls under any of the following exceptions (Section 13 (a) to (f)):
- It was not pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
- It has not been given on the merits of the case.
- It appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India (where applicable).
- The proceedings were opposed to natural justice (e.g., the defendant was not served proper notice).
- It was obtained by fraud.
- It sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law currently in force in India.
The "Merits of the Case" Doctrine: This is the most frequently litigated exception. As established by the Supreme Court of India in International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K) Ltd. (2001), a judgment is considered to be given "on merits" only if the foreign court considered the evidence led by the plaintiff and applied its judicial mind to the controversy. Default judgments or summary ex-parte decrees where no evidence was actually examined are frequently challenged and deemed unenforceable under this exception.
4. The 2026 Landscape: IBC and Cross-Border Debt Recovery
Since the 2020 notification, the practical impact on commercial litigation has been immense, particularly in states like Kerala, which has a massive expatriate population in the GCC.
Aggressive Banking Recovery
Prior to this status, individuals who accumulated significant debt (personal loans, corporate guarantees, or credit card defaults) with UAE banks and subsequently relocated to India operated with a degree of impunity. Today, institutions such as Emirates NBD, Mashreq, and First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) routinely obtain decrees in Dubai or Abu Dhabi courts and seamlessly initiate execution and asset attachment proceedings directly in Indian District Courts against the defaulters' Indian assets.
Triggering the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
The reciprocity framework has also deeply intersected with India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) have increasingly recognized decrees passed by reciprocating UAE courts as valid, crystallized "debt".
Conclusion
Recognizing the UAE as a reciprocating territory has bridged a critical gap in cross-border jurisprudence. For the UAE-India economic corridor in 2026, it instills a profound sense of security for investors, knowing that judgments obtained in sophisticated commercial hubs like the DIFC or ADGM carry genuine, executable weight in Indian jurisdictions. However, Indian entities facing such executions must rely on the precise statutory defenses afforded under Section 13 of the CPC to ensure that their rights to natural justice and adjudication on merits are fiercely protected.
