As per case facts, a dispute arose from a Share Purchase and Co-operation Agreement where the appellant guaranteed a loan for the respondent. After the guarantee was invoked and the ... appellant paid, reimbursement was sought. The English Court initially passed a default judgment, which was later set aside, and a summary judgment was issued. The respondent asserted defenses based on alleged oral agreements and financial statements indicating no outstanding liability. The Division Bench of the High Court found the English judgment to be non-compliant with the Civil Procedure Code. The question arose whether the English Court's summary judgment, passed without adequate opportunity for the respondent to defend and without fully considering its defenses including alleged oral agreements and financial records, was enforceable in India under Section 13 of the CPC, and if conditions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India under foreign exchange regulations made it unenforceable. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the summary judgment was not enforceable as it failed to provide a full opportunity to defend, thus not being on merits and violating natural justice principles under Section 13(b) and 13(d) of CPC. The court also noted the judgment’s non-compliance with Indian foreign exchange law under Sections 13(c) and 13(f). While determining liability is permissible, the court clarified that actual enforcement of such a decree still requires regulatory permission from RBI under FERA.