Can a foreign adoption deed be given effect in Mozambique? What procedural steps must be followed, and which requirements must be satisfied? Does the fact that the adoption takes the form of a notarial deed complicate its “recognition” in Mozambique under the applicable legal framework for the “review and confirmation of foreign judgments”? These are some of the questions addressed by the Mozambican Supreme Court in a recent decision concerning the recognition of an Indian adoption in Mozambique. The case is particularly interesting and offers valuable insights from a comparative law perspective, thus warranting closer examination.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Béligh Elbaltihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngBéligh Elbalti2026-10-19 03:44:292026-10-19 06:07:55Mozambican Supreme Court Recognises an Indian Adoption: A Teleological Approach to the Recognition of Foreign Acts
This post was kindly prepared by Sai Ramani Garimella, Associate Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University.
A judgment-creditor is often concerned about the enforcement of foreign court orders, and that concern is not completely misplaced in India. The Supreme Court’s decision in Messer Griesheim v Goyal MG Gases is a useful illustration of the law governing the enforcement of foreign court orders and of the discussion of their finality and binding nature. Twenty-three years after the underlying loan transaction, and after much litigation, the Court has finally closed the chapter, refusing to enforce a 2006 English court’s summary judgment for roughly USD 5.8 million. Along the way, it has also clarified two recurring questions that often come up whenever a foreign money decree is sought to be executed in India:
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Béligh Elbaltihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngBéligh Elbalti2026-06-26 04:15:182026-06-26 11:20:59Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond?
A recent article in the latest issue of the Asian Journal of Comparative Law revisits a feature of Indian private international law that often sits in the background of transactional and disputes practice but can decisively shape outcomes: the continued presence of révision au fond in India’s law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ).
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Saloni Khanderiahttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngSaloni Khanderia2026-06-07 10:36:052026-06-07 11:34:07Enforcing Indian Judgments Abroad: The Hidden Costs of Révision au Fond
Written by Samhith Malladi, Dual-qualified lawyer (India and England & Wales), and Senior Associate, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]; and Niyati Gandhi, Partner, Dispute Resolution, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]
The Recalibration of Enforcement Doctrine
The global campaign to enforce arbitral awards against the Republic of India arising from its long-running dispute with Devas Multimedia has witnessed a significant doctrinal shift in the treatment of sovereign immunity within the enforcement of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) awards.
To recall, the dispute arises from a contract entered in 2005 between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (Devas) and the Indian state-owned Antrix Corporation (Antrix), which was the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. Antrix had agreed to lease S-band spectrum to Devas to broadcast its multimedia services in India. Antrix terminated this contract in 2011 citing national security concerns. In a nutshell, the dispute spawned three concluded arbitrations – a commercial ICC arbitration between Devas and Antrix and two investor-state arbitrations between Devas’ shareholders and India under the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) 1998 and the India-Germany BIT 1995. In 2022, Devas’ Mauritian shareholders commenced another investor-state arbitration against India under the India-Mauritius BIT in relation to India’s efforts to thwart the award against Antrix in the ICC arbitration, which currently remains pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. An overview of the various proceedings arising from this dispute has been previously discussed on this blog here. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Saloni Khanderiahttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngSaloni Khanderia2025-05-21 11:38:012025-05-22 08:14:39Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Investor–State Arbitration Awards: Lessons from Devas V. India in Australia, The United Kingdom and India
As one of the most complex and fiercely contested recent investment disputes, the Indian Satellite Saga originated from India’s annulment of an agreement for leasing S-band electromagnetic spectrum on two satellites (Satellite Agreement) to Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. (Devas). The Saga involved multiple international arbitrations and domestic litigations. In 2022, the Supreme Court of India made a judgment (SCI Judgment) to wind up Devas. Devas and its foreign investors allege the SCI Judgment is a retaliatory measure against them for enforcing arbitration awards.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Jeanne Huanghttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngJeanne Huang2024-06-25 02:03:172024-06-25 02:03:17The Indian Satellite Saga and Retaliation: Recognizing the Supreme Court of India’s Judgment Abroad?
