Category: judiciary

Foreign Judgments under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 A foreign judgment plays an important role in determining the conclusiveness of decisions passed by foreign courts and their enforcement in India. The Indian Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, under Sections 2(5), 2(6), 13, 14 and 44A, along with principles of res judicata, lays down the rules regarding when and how such judgments are binding in India. Meaning of Foreign Court and Foreign Judgment • Section 2(5), CPC: “Foreign Court” means a court situated outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government. • Section 2(6), CPC: “Foreign Judgment” means the judgment of a foreign court. Thus, for a judgment to be treated as a foreign judgment in India, it must come from a court situated outside India and not recognized as an Indian court. Res Judicata and Foreign Judgment • Section 11 CPC (Res Judicata) does not directly apply to foreign judgments. • However, the broad principle of res judicata applies under Section 13 CPC, provided that the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. When is a Foreign Judgment Conclusive? (Section 13 CPC) A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated upon between the same parties under the same title, except in the following situations: 1. Lack of Jurisdiction – The foreign court had no jurisdiction. 2. Not on Merits – Judgment not passed after considering evidence and applying judicial mind. 3. Incorrect View of International Law / Ignoring Indian Law – When Indian law is applicable but ignored. 4. Violation of Natural Justice – No fair hearing, no summons served, or denial of opportunity to cross-examine. 5. Fraud – Judgment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 6. Breach of Indian Law – Judgment based on a claim violating Indian law.  Effect: If none of the above exceptions apply, the Indian courts are bound to treat the foreign judgment as final and conclusive. Key Requirements for Binding Effect For a foreign judgment to operate conclusively in India: • Parties must be the same (or their representatives). • They must sue under the same title. • The matter (issue) decided must be the same. Example: If A sues B in the U.S. court and the matter is decided, then A cannot re-litigate the same issue in India, subject to Section 13 exceptions. Presumption as to Jurisdiction and Genuineness • Section 14 CPC: When a certified copy of a foreign judgment is produced, the Indian court shall presume the foreign court had jurisdiction, unless proved otherwise. • Section 86 Evidence Act (old Sec. 88 BSA): The Indian court may presume certified copies of foreign judicial records to be genuine.  Thus, once a certified copy is filed, the burden shifts to the opposite party to prove lack of jurisdiction or any exception under Section 13. Jurisdiction of Foreign Courts – Section 13(a) CPC For a foreign court to have jurisdiction: 1. The parties must be domiciled in that foreign country, or 2. They must consent to its jurisdiction (expressly or by acquiescence). • If summons is received and the party contests on merits without objecting to jurisdiction → jurisdiction by acquiescence. • If summons is ignored or objection is raised → foreign court has no jurisdiction. Clause (b) & (d): Judgment on Merits & Natural Justice • Judgment on Merits (Clause b): Only when both parties were heard, evidence was considered, and judicial mind was applied. An ex parte decree without evidence is not on merits. • Violation of Natural Justice (Clause d): Where summons not served, no opportunity of hearing/cross-examination given. Often, both clauses overlap. Clause (e): Foreign Judgment Obtained by Fraud Fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings. Examples: • Jurisdictional Fraud: False claim of domicile. • Fraud in Service of Summons: Fabricated proof of service. • Fraudulent Evidence/Documents: False documents presented. Such decrees are not conclusive under Section 13. • Clause (c) & (f): Incorrect Law / Breach of Indian Law • Clause (c): When Indian law is applicable but foreign court applies foreign law. • Clause (f): When decree is based on a breach of Indian law, it is not conclusive. Important Case Laws • Narsimha Rao v. Venkata Lakshmi (1999, SC): U.S. divorce decree held invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, fraud, violation of natural justice, wrong law applied. • Satya v. Teja Singh (1975, SC): U.S. divorce decree invalid – husband falsely claimed domicile. • Gurdas Mann v. Mohinder Singh Brar (1993, P&H HC): Ex parte decree without evidence not conclusive. • International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (2000, SC): Burden of proving exceptions lies on the party challenging the judgment. Execution of Foreign Decrees Foreign judgments can be executed in India in two ways: 1. Direct Execution (Sec. 44A CPC): • Applicable only to money decrees from superior courts of reciprocating territories. • Such decrees can be directly filed for execution in Indian courts. 2. Filing a Fresh Suit: • For non-money decrees, or decrees from non-reciprocating territories. • A certified copy of the foreign judgment is filed, and the Indian court passes its own decree. Conclusion The CPC strikes a balance between respecting foreign judicial decisions and protecting Indian legal sovereignty. While Section 13 CPC makes foreign judgments conclusive, it also provides safeguards against lack of jurisdiction, fraud, violation of natural justice, or breach of Indian law. Sections 14 and 44A CPC further regulate the presumption of validity and execution of such decrees. Thus, foreign judgments are respected in India, but only when they meet the tests of fairness, jurisdiction, and conformity with Indian law. ✓ To start your preparation for Judicial Services Examination at home, drop a message on WhatsApp +91 8840961324 or call us on +91 9151591324 At Theory of Abrogation, we equip you with everything you need: •Subject-wise expert classes •Mock test series •Legal current affairs •Personalized mentorship for interview preparation  “Your law degree is your foundation, but your preparation is what will build your success.”   Join Our New Batch Now! Prepare smart. Prepare…

Read More “” »

Res Sub Judice: Stay of Suit under Section 10 CPC Introduction Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Sub Judice, which literally means “a matter under judicial consideration”. The provision is aimed at preventing simultaneous trials of two suits in different courts when the matter in issue is the same, thereby avoiding conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. Statutory Provision Section 10 reads as follows: “No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any court beyond the limits of India established or constituted by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.” Explanation: The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude Indian courts from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. Object of Section 10 The primary purpose of Section 10 is: • To avoid multiplicity of proceedings. • To prevent two courts of concurrent jurisdiction from trying the same matter at the same time. • To avoid the risk of conflicting decisions. Conditions for Applicability For Section 10 to apply, the following conditions must be satisfied: 1. There must be two suits – one previously instituted and another subsequently instituted. 2. The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit. 3. Both suits must be between the same parties or their representatives. 4. The parties must be litigating under the same title in both suits. 5. The previously instituted suit must be pending in a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. 6. Section 10 applies only to suits (including appeals) and not to applications or complaints. ✓ Meaning of “Matter in Issue” The expression “matter in issue” means the entire matter in controversy in the suit, not just some issues. Mere overlapping of issues is insufficient. Example: Recovery of rent for one period and rent for a later period with ejectment would not be considered the same matter in issue. Illustrations 1. Claim for Rent: A sues B for rent. B denies rent is due. The claim for rent is directly and substantially in issue. 2. Title & Rent: A sues B for declaration of title and for rent of the same land. Both title and rent are directly and substantially in issue. 3. Trademark Dispute: If A company sues B company for infringement and B files a similar suit against A in another court, the latter must be stayed. Scope of Section 10 • Bar on Trial, Not Institution: Section 10 does not prohibit filing of a subsequent suit; it only bars its trial until the earlier suit is decided. • Mandatory Nature: The provision is mandatory and applies whenever conditions are met. • Inherent Powers: If conditions are not strictly met, courts can use inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to stay proceedings in the interest of justice. Effect of Contravention A decree passed in contravention of Section 10 is not void; it remains valid unless set aside. The rule can also be waived by parties if they consent to proceed with the subsequent suit. Interim Orders A stay of the suit does not prevent the court from passing interim orders such as injunctions, appointment of receiver, attachment before judgment, etc. Test for Applicability The key test is whether the decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later suit. If yes, the later suit must be stayed. Consolidation of Suits To avoid conflicting judgments, courts may consolidate suits between the same parties involving substantially the same issues. ∆ Difference between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice 1. Res Judicata: Applies to matters already adjudicated (final decision). 2. Res Sub Judice: Applies to matters pending decision in a previously instituted suit. Conclusion Section 10 CPC is a procedural safeguard ensuring judicial discipline by avoiding parallel trials over the same dispute. While it bars the trial of a subsequent suit, it leaves room for necessary interim relief and consolidation, ultimately aiming to protect the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process. ✓ To start your preparation for Judicial Services Examination at home, drop a message on WhatsApp +91 8840961324 or call us on +91 9151591324 At Theory of Abrogation, we equip you with everything you need: •Subject-wise expert classes •Mock test series •Legal current affairs •Personalized mentorship for interview preparation “Your law degree is your foundation, but your preparation is what will build your success.”   Join Our New Batch Now! Prepare smart. Prepare with Theory of Abrogation. Contact Us: B-109, Commercial Complex Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-09 +91 9971399324 | +91 8840961324 [email protected]