Pubali Sinha Chowdhury

The applicant, Corona Steel Industry Private Limited, sought substantial indemnity costs from the respondent, Integrity Worldwide Inc., following its successful application to recognize and enforce an Indian judgment.

Corona argued for substantial indemnity due to the respondent's litigation conduct and based on an offer to settle.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity due to the respondent's conduct, as their actions were within their rights to challenge the application.

Furthermore, the offer to settle did not qualify for Rule 49.10(1) consequences because it had effectively expired before the hearing.

Consequently, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, reducing the claimed hours due to Corona's initial failure to provide evidence on Indian law, which caused an adjournment.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained in India against the respondent for unpaid goods.

The respondent opposed, arguing the expert evidence on Indian law was inadmissible due to bias, the Indian court lacked jurisdiction, the claim was statute-barred, and there was a denial of natural justice.

The court admitted the expert evidence, found a real and substantial connection to India, held the limitation period did not begin until the foreign appeal period expired, and found no denial of natural justice.

The application was granted and the Indian judgment was recognized.