CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Ors v The Republic of India

The construction of a judicial order is determined objectively by its operative language, read in the circumstances known to the court and parties. The judgment’s reasons may explain the order but cannot contradict it. Where permission is granted to adduce foreign-law evidence on the prospects of recognition of a foreign judgment, that permission ordinarily extends to all relevant aspects of the recognition issue unless expressly limited. A court may vary a case-management order where there has been a material change of circumstances or the original decision rested on misstated facts. Declaratory relief should be refused where it would serve no useful purpose.

The Applicants sought clarification, alternatively variation, of an order made by Sir Nigel Teare concerning expert evidence on Dutch law and the prospects of Dutch recognition of a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dutch revocation proceedings. The order permitted evidence on recognition of the Indian judgment but separately excluded Indian-law evidence on its procedural fairness.

India argued that procedural fairness was therefore not in issue. The central question was whether the permission for Dutch-law evidence included assessment of procedural fairness under the Dutch recognition criteria.

1. Construction of the order. The court applied the approach in Sans Souci Ltd v VRL Services [2012] UKPC 6, as supplemented by Coward v Phaestos [2021] EWHC 9 and Pan Petroleum AJE Ltd v Yinka Folawiyo Petroleum Co Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1525. The operative words of paragraph 4(4) granted permission for Dutch-law evidence on all aspects of whether the Indian judgment would be recognised or given effect in the revocation proceedings. That included procedural fairness under the criteria identified in the Dutch Supreme Court’s Gazprombank decision, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2838.
2. The separate refusal of Indian-law evidence on procedural fairness did not limit the permission for Dutch-law evidence. The parties’ common position was that recognition was governed by Dutch law, and no exclusion appeared in paragraph 4(4) or the related permissions.
3. Alternative variation. If the order had excluded the issue, variation under CPR 3.1(7), or further permission under CPR 35.4, would have been appropriate. The issue was relevant to India’s prospects in the revocation proceedings and to the stay application; Dutch-law expert evidence was reasonably required.
4. Declaration. Applying Rolls Royce v Unite the Union [2010] 1 WLR 318, the court refused a declaration because it would serve no useful purpose. The court was not determining the full scope of the Section 9 issues, which could be addressed later with full argument.
5. The declaration was refused. The parties were directed to endeavour to agree consequential orders within seven days; outstanding matters were adjourned if necessary.

First-instance case-management and declaratory applications. The judgment records that Sir William Blair’s decision on the Section 2 Question, handed down on 17 April 2025, was subject to a pending appeal.