KHAS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. GREENFLOW INTERNATIONAL LLC & ORS.
EX.P./29/2023 · 2026-07-17
Subramonium Prasad
body2023
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 7334 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2023 DAILYLAW 7334 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
EX.P. 29/2023 $~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.P. 29/2023 & EX.APPL.(OS) 540/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 541/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 542/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 544/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 766/2023 KHAS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Decree Holder Through: None. versus GREENFLOW INTERNATIONAL LLC & ORS. .....Judgement Debtors Through: Mr Vinay Yadav, CGSC with Ms. Kamna Behrani, Mr Ansh Kalra and Mr. Neeraj P. Raj, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R %
17.07.2026
1. The present Petition under Order XXI read with Section 151 of the CPC has been filed by the Decree Holder for execution of a Decree dated 16.08.2018 passed by this Court.
2. It is stated that the said Decree has to be executed in Oman.
3. This Court on 20.02.2025 had recorded the submission made by the
learned Counsel for Ministry of Law and Justice that since the Decree Holder is seeking for execution of an Indian Decree by an Indian Court outside the territory of India, therefore, it will not be covered under Section 44A of the CPC. The said Order further records that the Decree Holder further approached the Court of Oman for execution of the Decree which This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:31:05
EX.P. 29/2023 was dismissed and the order was upheld by the Appellate Court of Oman and the matter was adjourned to 13.05.2025. 4. On the 13.05.2025, this Court passed the following orders:
“1. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder seeks an adjournment on the ground of the unavailability of the main counsel. 2. Mr. Vinay Yadav, learned counsel appearing for Ministry of Law and Justice states that he had appeared on 20.02.2025, however his name has been wrongly recorded as the Vijay Gupta. The said statement is taken on record. 3. He refers to the proceedings recorded on 20.02.2025 and states that the present execution petition under Section 44A CPC is not maintainable. 4. At the request of Decree Holder, in the interest of justice list on 22.07.2025. 5. It is made clear that if the Decree Holder is not available to address arguments on the next date of hearing, the petition will stands dismissed in view of the submissions recorded in order dated 20.02.2025.”
5. A perusal of the Order dated 13.05.2025 indicates that an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Decree Holder on the ground of unavailability of the main Counsel and the matter was adjourned to 22.07.2025. Order sheet reveals that on 22.07.2025 there was no appearance on behalf of the Decree Holder and the matter was adjourned to 29.10.2025. On 29.10.2025, another adjournment was sought on behalf of the Decree Holder on the ground of personal difficulty and the matter was adjourned to 07.11.2025. On 07.11.2025, the Decree Holder again sought for an adjournment to take This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:31:05
EX.P. 29/2023 instructions and the matter was adjourned to 29.11.2026. On 29.11.2026, the matter was not taken up for hearing and the matter was adjourned to today i.e., 17.07.2026. It is pertinent to mention that there is no appearance on behalf of the Decree Holder today as well. 6. Section 44A of the CPC is being reproduced as under:
“44A. [Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory (1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of [* * *] any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in [India] [Substituted by Act 2 of 1951, Section 3, for "the States" .]as if it had been passed by the District Court. (2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior Court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment. (3) The provisions of section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13. [ Explanation I .-"Reciprocating territory" means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and "superior Courts", with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:31:05
EX.P. 29/2023 reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification. Explanation II .-"Decree" with reference to a superior Court means any decree or judgment of such Court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or
judgment.] [Substituted by Act 71 of 1952, Section 2, for Explanations 1 to 3.]”
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Union of India and in the opinion of this Court, since the said Decree is an Indian Decree for execution by an Indian Court outside the territory of India, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed further.
8. In view of the above, the Petition stands dismissed.
9. The Petition is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JULY 17, 2026 Prateek This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:31:05