Unit 2 CC
Unit 2 CC
Kinds of jurisdictions
1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction
-Definition: Pecuniary jurisdiction determines a court’s authority based on the financial value or
monetary amount involved in a dispute. This type of jurisdiction is essential for managing the
caseload across various court levels by assigning cases based on financial stakes, thereby
preventing lower courts from handling cases involving large sums that might require more
complex adjudication.
-Purpose: Pecuniary jurisdiction prevents lower courts from becoming overburdened with
high-value cases that they may not be equipped to handle and ensures that high-value or
complex cases are handled by courts with appropriate resources.
Application in Courts: The monetary limits differ among courts, with each court authorized to
-handle cases up to a certain amount. For instance, in India, the Small Causes Court can
typically handle cases of lower value, while higher value claims are filed in District or High
Courts, depending on state regulations.
-Example: If a civil court has a pecuniary limit of INR 5 lakhs, it cannot entertain cases where
the disputed amount exceeds this limit; such cases would need to be filed in a court with a
higher monetary jurisdiction, such as a District Court or a High Court.
-High Court : Suits with a valuation above Rs. 1 crore are heard in the High Court.
-Civil Judge Senior Division : Suits with a valuation between Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore are
heard in the Civil Judge Senior Division.
-Civil Judge Junior Division : Suits with a valuation up to Rs. 5 lakhs are heard in the Civil Judge
Junior Division.
-Small Cause Court : Suits with a valuation up to Rs. 20,000 are heard in the Small Cause Court
2. Territorial Jurisdiction
Definition: Territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographic area within which a court has the power
to hear and decide cases. A court's authority to exercise its power within specific geographic
boundaries is crucial for the proper distribution of cases and prevents jurisdictional overlap
among courts.
Purpose: Territorial jurisdiction ensures that cases are tried in courts relevant to the location
where the incident or transaction occurred or where the parties reside, promoting convenience
and reducing logistical challenges for the parties.
Application in Courts: Courts are divided geographically, with district courts having jurisdiction
over their respective districts, state courts over the entire state, and so forth. In cross-border
disputes within federal structures, this jurisdiction is often pivotal in determining the appropriate
venue.
Example: If a contractual dispute arises in Delhi, typically, only a court in Delhi would have the
jurisdiction to hear the case, as this is where the cause of action took place. Exceptions apply if
the contract includes a "jurisdiction clause" allowing the dispute to be filed in another location.
Definition: Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a specific type
or cases involving particular issues or types of law. This jurisdiction categorizes cases based on
their subject matter, ensuring that specialized matters are dealt with by courts that have specific
expertise in those areas.
Purpose: This jurisdiction maintains efficiency and expertise in the judicial system by assigning
cases to courts with the required legal knowledge in specific fields such as family law, tax,
intellectual property, or criminal law.
Application in Courts: Specialized courts, such as Family Courts, Commercial Courts, Tax
Tribunals, and Labour Courts, are created to handle cases of a particular subject matter. This
jurisdiction is predefined by statutes, determining which court is authorized to handle which type
of case.
Example: A case involving divorce and child custody would fall under the Family Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. Similarly, a trademark infringement case would go to a court with jurisdiction
over intellectual property issues.
4. Exclusive Jurisdiction
Definition: Exclusive jurisdiction means that only a particular court has the authority to
adjudicate specific types of cases, to the exclusion of all other courts. This type of jurisdiction is
granted to avoid jurisdictional disputes and ensure that certain matters are handled by the most
appropriate court.
Purpose: Exclusive jurisdiction centralizes case handling to ensure consistency and expertise in
judgments, especially for highly specialized or constitutionally important matters.
Application in Courts: Courts with exclusive jurisdiction have the sole authority over particular
issues. In India, for instance, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes
between states or between the central and state governments.
Example: Only the Supreme Court of India can hear disputes between two or more states under
Article 131 of the Constitution, making it the exclusive venue for such matters.
5. Concurrent Jurisdiction
Definition: Concurrent jurisdiction occurs when multiple courts have jurisdiction over the same
case, allowing the plaintiff to choose which court to file the case in. This is common in cases that
could be appropriately handled by more than one court due to shared jurisdiction.
Purpose: Concurrent jurisdiction provides flexibility, allowing plaintiffs to choose a court based
on factors such as convenience, accessibility, or perceived advantages. It helps accommodate
parties by giving them options regarding where to file their cases.
Application in Courts: Often, cases of lower value or general civil and criminal matters may be
filed either in a district court or a higher court if both courts have jurisdiction over the case's
subject and the location.
Example: A tort case arising in one state that involves parties from different states might be filed
in either the state court where the incident occurred or in a federal court, if federal law applies.
6. Appellate Jurisdiction
Definition: Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to review and potentially change
the outcome of decisions made by lower courts. Courts with appellate jurisdiction do not hear
cases for the first time but rather review cases already decided to correct errors or ensure
justice.
Application in Courts: Appellate jurisdiction is exercised by higher courts, such as High Courts
and the Supreme Court in India, which hear appeals from lower courts. Each level of the judicial
hierarchy generally has appellate jurisdiction over the courts immediately below it.
Example: After a decision in a District Court, the losing party can appeal to the High Court,
which has appellate jurisdiction over district-level cases. The High Court may uphold, reverse, or
modify the lower court’s judgment.
7. Original Jurisdiction
Definition: Original jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear a case for the first time. Courts
with original jurisdiction are the first to hear a particular dispute, and their judgment may later be
appealed in a higher court.
Purpose: Original jurisdiction allows certain cases to be initiated directly in a specific court,
usually for cases of high importance or urgency, or those involving complex legal questions.
Application in Courts: Original jurisdiction applies in cases that fall under the initial purview of
specific courts. For example, the Supreme Court of India has original jurisdiction over cases
involving disputes between the Union and states or between multiple states.
Example: A legal dispute between two states, such as a boundary or water-sharing conflict, can
be directly filed in the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.
8. Special Jurisdiction
Definition: Special jurisdiction refers to the authority of certain courts or tribunals to hear only
specific types of cases, often determined by special laws or regulations that assign cases to
specialized forums.
Application in Courts: Special jurisdiction is typically seen in special courts, such as Family
Courts, Juvenile Courts, and Bankruptcy Courts, which exclusively handle cases within their
designated focus.
Example: Family Courts in India exclusively handle matters such as marriage, divorce, and child
custody, ensuring these issues are addressed in a specialized legal environment.
9. Legal Jurisdiction
Definition: Legal jurisdiction refers to the scope and limits of the authority granted to a court by
law, encompassing the ability to make legal judgments and rulings within a defined area.
Purpose: Legal jurisdiction ensures that courts operate strictly within the boundaries established
by law, regulating the types of cases they can hear based on statutes, precedents, and
regulations.
Application in Courts: Legal jurisdiction is a broad concept that underpins all other types of
jurisdiction, governing how cases are allocated and processed within the judicial system.
Example: The Code of Civil Procedure in India defines the jurisdiction of various courts,
specifying their authority in civil matters based on pecuniary, territorial, and subject matter
considerations.
Purpose: Extending jurisdiction allows courts to handle cases that may otherwise fall outside
their authority, particularly in extraordinary situations or to accommodate broader legal needs.
Example: During a natural disaster, a local court’s jurisdiction might be extended to handle
cases across additional regions or to expedite certain types of cases, ensuring that justice
remains accessible even under abnormal conditions.
Hierarchy Of Courts
The Indian judiciary has a well-defined hierarchy, structured to ensure efficient delivery of justice
across various levels. The hierarchy is organized into several tiers, with the Supreme Court at
the top, followed by High Courts, District Courts, and subordinate courts. Here’s a breakdown of
each level in detail:
2. High Courts
3. District Courts
4. Subordinate Courts
● Position: Lowest level in the judiciary hierarchy, consisting of courts that operate at the
taluka, tehsil, or block level within each district.
● Types of Subordinate Courts:
○ Civil Courts (Sub-Judge, Junior Civil Judge, Munsiff Courts): Handle civil
disputes at the local level, including property disputes, family matters, and
contract disputes.
○ Criminal Courts (Magistrate Courts): Handle criminal cases, with varying levels
of power depending on the rank of the magistrate (First Class, Second Class,
Chief Judicial Magistrate).
● Hierarchy within Subordinate Courts:
○ Court of Civil Judge: Deals with small civil cases.
○ Court of Judicial Magistrate: Deals with minor criminal offenses.
○ Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM): Has the highest authority in criminal matters
among the Magistrate courts.
● Special Role: Subordinate courts serve as the first point of contact for most litigants and
play a significant role in the grassroots-level dispensation of justice.
The hierarchical structure of Indian courts allows for a system of appeals where cases can be
elevated from lower courts to higher courts. Here’s a brief flow of appeals:
This hierarchy ensures a structured flow and accountability within the judicial system, allowing
litigants to seek further reviews of judgments if needed.
The scope of suits of civil nature under the CPC is extensive and covers various types of civil
disputes. These may include suits for recovery of money, suits for specific performance of
contracts, suits for declaration of rights, suits for injunctions, suits for partition of property, suits
for damages, and many others. The CPC provides a procedural framework for conducting these
suits, ensuring that civil disputes are resolved through a systematic and fair legal process.
The CPC classifies suits of civil nature into different categories based on the nature of the
dispute. Some of the common types of suits of civil nature under the CPC are as follows:
a) Suits for Recovery of Money: These are suits where a party seeks to recover a sum of money
due to them from another party. It may arise out of a contract, loan, or any other legal obligation.
b) Suits for Specific Performance of Contracts: These are suits where a party seeks to enforce
the performance of a contract by the other party. Specific performance is a discretionary
remedy, and the court may grant it in certain circumstances.
c) Suits for Declaration of Rights: These are suits where a party seeks a declaration from the
court affirming their legal rights or status. For example, a suit for a declaration of ownership of a
property.
d) Suits for Injunctions: These are suits where a party seeks an order from the court restraining
another party from doing a certain act or compelling them to do a certain act. Injunctions can be
temporary (interim) or permanent, depending on the circumstances.
e) Suits for Partition of Property: These are suits where co-owners of a property seek a division
of the property among themselves.
f) Suits for Damages: These are suits where a party seeks compensation for the loss or harm
suffered due to the wrongful act of another party.
Some of the key provisions related to suits of civil nature under the CPC include:
Jurisdiction: The CPC defines the jurisdiction of courts to entertain and try civil suits. It specifies
territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction (based on the value of the claim), and subject-matter
jurisdiction (based on the nature of the dispute).
Pleadings: The CPC lays down the rules for filing of plaints (the document by which a suit is
initiated) and written statements (the response to the plaint) in civil suits. It prescribes the
essential contents of a plaint, such as the parties involved, facts of the case, and relief sought.
Evidence: The CPC sets out the rules for the production and admissibility of evidence in civil
suits. It includes provisions related to examination of witnesses, production of documents, and
burden of proof.
Interim Orders: The CPC provides for the grant of interim orders in civil suits to safeguard the
rights of parties during the pendency of the suit. This includes temporary injunctions,
appointment of receivers, and attachment of property.
Appeals: The CPC outlines the procedure for filing and disposing of appeals against the orders
and decrees passed in civil suits. It sets out the rules related to the appellate jurisdiction of
higher courts, grounds of appeal, and limitations on the power of appellate courts.
Execution of Decrees: The CPC provides for the enforcement of decrees passed in civil suits. It
includes provisions related to the execution of decrees for payment of money, delivery of
property, and other reliefs granted by the court.
Section 9 of CPC
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India establishes the general rule that civil
courts can hear all kinds of civil cases, meaning cases related to private rights or obligations,
unless there is a specific legal reason they cannot. In other words, if someone has a dispute
about a civil matter, such as property, contracts, or personal rights, they can typically take that
matter to a civil court for resolution. However, Section 9 also lays out certain exceptions,
meaning there are some cases civil courts cannot hear.
"Expressly barred" means that a law specifically and clearly states that a civil court is not
allowed to handle a certain type of case. In these situations, another authority is often
designated to handle that type of case, so the civil court’s involvement is unnecessary or even
prohibited. This is often done to create efficiency, allowing specialized bodies to handle certain
disputes while freeing civil courts for other matters.
Tax Disputes: Disputes related to taxes are typically handled by tax authorities or tax tribunals,
which have specific expertise in tax laws and regulations. A law may state that civil courts are
not permitted to hear tax-related cases.
Labor Disputes: Employment and labor-related issues, such as disputes over wages, wrongful
termination, or workplace conditions, are often directed to labor courts or tribunals. This setup
ensures that employment experts handle labor cases instead of civil courts.
Company Law Matters: Certain disputes involving companies are directed to specialized bodies
like the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rather than civil courts. This tribunal deals with
company registration, mergers, and insolvency, as specified in the Companies Act.
These types of cases are expressly barred from the jurisdiction of civil courts because laws
specify that they should go before specialized bodies, which are set up to deal with these
particular types of disputes.
"Impliedly barred" refers to situations where a specific law does not directly state that the case is
off-limits to civil courts, but it’s generally understood or implied that civil courts shouldn’t get
involved. Implied bars arise from legal principles, case history, or the context of a particular type
of dispute. When a court sees that another authority is more suited to resolve the issue, it may
refuse jurisdiction, even though no law directly prevents it.
Alternative Remedies Available: In cases where there is another way to resolve the issue
(known as an "alternative remedy"), a civil court may decide not to take the case.
For example, if someone has a consumer-related dispute about a defective product, they can
approach the Consumer Forum, which specializes in consumer issues. Since the Consumer
Forum is set up specifically to handle these types of complaints, a civil court may decline to hear
the case, even though there isn’t an explicit law barring it.
Internal Matters of Religious or Charitable Trusts: Civil courts often avoid getting involved in
purely internal matters of religious or charitable organizations, as long as those disputes do not
affect any civil rights or public interests.
For example, if there is a dispute about the management practices within a religious institution,
a civil court may treat it as "impliedly barred," preferring not to interfere, as long as no one’s
legal rights outside the institution are affected.
Disputes Concerning Political Questions: Courts generally avoid cases involving political
questions or issues of policy, which are often best resolved by the government or legislature.
For instance, civil courts typically avoid getting involved in decisions regarding government
policy, as these decisions are generally within the domain of the executive or legislative
branches of government. The courts may see these issues as "impliedly barred" from their
jurisdiction.
The primary reasons for barring certain cases from civil courts are efficiency and specialization.
Specialized tribunals or bodies are often better equipped to handle complex or technical issues,
allowing for quicker, more knowledgeable decisions. It also helps reduce the caseload of civil
courts, so they can focus on cases that genuinely require their involvement
RES JUDICATA.
Res Judicata is a doctrine rooted in the legal maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa,”
meaning “no one should be vexed twice for the same cause.” It is a principle that ensures
finality and certainty in judicial decisions, preventing parties from re-litigating issues that have
already been decided.
The purpose of Res Judicata is to:
● Prevent Multiple Litigations: Avoid multiple cases on the same subject between the same
parties.
● Save Judicial Resources: By preventing redundant litigation, the court system is used
more efficiently.
● Maintain Consistency in Judgments: Ensure the stability of legal outcomes by avoiding
contradictory rulings.
● Protect the Interest of the Parties: Protect individuals from the stress, time, and cost of
fighting the same legal battle repeatedly.
In India, the principle of Res Judicata is embodied in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC). Section 11 explicitly states that no court shall try a suit or issue that has been
directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties (or their
representatives) where the issue has been heard and finally decided by a competent court.
For the doctrine of Res Judicata to apply, the following conditions must be met:
1.Same Parties: The parties in both the previous and current suits must be the same, or they
must be litigating under the same title. For example, if a person’s legal heir litigates a matter,
they are bound by Res Judicata as much as the person would be.
2.Competent Court: The previous suit must have been decided by a court competent to try that
suit. A decision by a court lacking jurisdiction does not satisfy Res Judicata.
3.Final Decision: There must have been a final decision in the previous suit. A preliminary order
or interlocutory order (which does not conclusively decide the matter) does not amount to a final
decision for Res Judicata purposes.
4.Direct and Substantial Issue: The matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in
the previous suit. The term “directly and substantially” indicates that the issue was the core
subject matter of the previous suit, not a side issue or incidental point.
5.Same Cause of Action: The cause of action in the former suit and the current suit should be
identical. For example, if a dispute arises out of a contract, the same contractual terms must be
the basis of litigation in both cases for Res Judicata to apply.
Suppose Person A files a lawsuit against Person B for the ownership of a piece of land. The
court, after reviewing evidence, rules in favor of Person A and grants them ownership. Later,
Person B cannot file a new lawsuit against Person A for ownership of the same land based on
the same facts and cause of action because the issue has already been adjudicated, and Res
Judicata applies.
1.Direct Res Judicata: This applies when an issue directly raised and decided in a previous suit
cannot be raised again in a subsequent suit.
2.Constructive Res Judicata: This applies to issues that could have been raised in the previous
suit but were not. Under Explanation IV of Section 11, a party is barred from raising issues in
subsequent suits that could have been raised in the initial suit.
Under Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC, Constructive Res Judicata prevents parties from
re-litigating issues that they had an opportunity to raise in a previous suit but chose not to. This
doctrine treats issues that could have been raised as if they were raised and decided, barring
them from being raised in future litigation.
While Res Judicata is a powerful principle, certain exceptions apply, allowing parties to
re-litigate in limited situations:
1.Fraud: If a judgment was obtained through fraudulent means, Res Judicata does not apply.
The affected party can challenge the decision by proving fraud.
2.Writ Petitions and Public Interest Litigations: Res Judicata does not always apply strictly to writ
petitions or PILs in India. The doctrine may be applied with flexibility in public interest cases to
allow courts to address recurring or important public issues.
3.Fundamental Rights: The doctrine of Res Judicata has limited application in matters involving
the enforcement of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, especially under Article 32
(Right to Constitutional Remedies) and Article 226 (Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts).
4.Different Subject Matter or Cause of Action: If the cause of action or subject matter of the
subsequent suit is entirely different from the previous suit, Res Judicata may not apply.
The Indian judiciary has interpreted Section 11 and Res Judicata in several landmark cases:
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961): The Supreme Court held that Res Judicata applies to
writ petitions under Article 32, as it aims to prevent multiplicity of litigation. However, this does
not bar a fresh petition under Article 32 if it raises new issues or involves different fundamental
rights.
Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960): The Supreme Court clarified that Res Judicata is
based on public policy to prevent conflicting judgments. It also reiterated that constructive Res
Judicata prevents re-litigation of issues that could have been raised in the initial suit.
P. Kalinga Rao v. M.D. Jadhav (1976): The Court held that Res Judicata applies to
administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings to prevent repetitive disputes before administrative
bodies.
Conclusion
Res Judicata serves as a fundamental principle to ensure finality and prevent abuse of judicial
resources. By barring re-litigation of the same issues, it protects the legal rights of the parties
and upholds the integrity of the judicial process
The doctrine of Res Sub-Judice is a principle under Indian law that prevents multiple
proceedings involving the same issue and the same parties from being heard simultaneously. It
is a Latin term meaning "a matter under judicial consideration." This doctrine is primarily outlined
in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, and is aimed at avoiding conflicting
decisions and judicial inconsistencies.
Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that if there is a previously instituted suit that is
pending in a competent court, any subsequent suit on the same matter involving the same
parties should be stayed until the earlier suit is resolved. This provision is mandatory, meaning
that if all conditions are met, the court has no discretion to proceed with the later suit.
For the doctrine to apply, certain conditions must be satisfied. If any of these conditions are
unmet, the doctrine cannot be invoked:
● Pending Suit: There must be an existing, pending suit in a competent court in India or in
a foreign court that has jurisdiction and is not barred by reciprocity issues.
● Same Parties: Both suits should involve the same parties or parties under the same title
(such as legal heirs or assignees).
● Same Matter in Issue: The subject matter or matter in issue in both suits must be
substantially the same. It’s not required that all issues are identical, but the core subject
matter should be.
● Competent Jurisdiction: The previously instituted suit should be pending in a court that
has proper jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. A court lacking jurisdiction does not
qualify for Res Sub-Judice protection.
● Previously Instituted Suit: The suit that was instituted first is given precedence, and
the subsequent suit on the same issue must be stayed.
Application of Res Sub-Judice in Judicial Proceedings
When all conditions of Section 10 are met, the doctrine mandates the stay of the subsequent
proceedings. Here are some key points on how it is applied in practice:
● Stay of Proceedings, Not Dismissal: The doctrine does not mandate dismissal but
only a stay on the later-filed case. This allows the court to avoid parallel judgments while
keeping the option open to revive the case later if needed.
● Jurisdictional Priority: The court where the suit was first filed is prioritized. Therefore, if
a suit is filed first in a lower court, even a higher court may have to stay the proceedings
in the subsequent case if the conditions apply.
● Interim Orders: Section 10 does not bar the courts from granting interim relief (such as
injunctions) in the stayed suit, if the relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the
parties.
The doctrine serves several practical and ethical functions within the judicial system:
● Different Issues: If the issues in the two suits are different, even if they involve the
same parties, the doctrine is inapplicable.
● Relief-Based Suits: If the relief sought in both suits is different, Res Sub-Judice may not
apply. For instance, a suit for specific performance and a suit for damages, although
involving the same subject matter, might not trigger this doctrine.
● Special Proceedings: Proceedings in family courts, small cause courts, or tribunals with
special jurisdiction are sometimes excluded, as their purpose and jurisdiction may differ
from the ordinary civil courts.
● Concurrent Jurisdiction: If the matter is pending in different types of courts with
concurrent jurisdiction but distinct judicial functions, the doctrine may not apply.
● Foreign Judgments: Res Sub-Judice generally applies within the Indian judicial system,
though sometimes cases pending in foreign courts may impact Indian proceedings if
there are reciprocity agreements or if the foreign judgment is recognized by Indian law.
Indian courts have frequently interpreted and clarified the doctrine through case law:
● In the case of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Fed. Ltd.
(1998), the SC held that the rule laid down in Section10 of CPC applies to trial of a suit
and not the institution thereof.
● In the case of Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Shri Krishna Poddar (1969), the Supreme Court
held that the Doctrine of Res Sub Judice will not apply when the matter in issue in a
subsequent suit is completely different from the suit that was instituted initially,
● National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara (2005): The
Supreme Court of India reiterated that Res Sub-Judice serves to prevent parallel
proceedings and conflicting judgments.
● S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla (2005): This case highlighted that Res
Sub-Judice must be applied in cases where the same matter in issue is involved and
where the parties are the same, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
Conclusion
The doctrine of Res Sub-Judice is fundamental to the Indian judicial process. It not only
promotes efficiency within the judiciary but also safeguards litigants from redundant legal
battles. By ensuring a single judgment for the same matter between the same parties, it upholds
the principles of justice, reduces the possibility of conflicting judgments, and strengthens the
authority of judicial decisions.
FOREIGN JUDGEMENT
The term “foreign judgment” is defined in Section 2(6) of the CPC as a judgment
issued by a court outside India.
Section 13 of the Code outlines the criteria for recognising a foreign judgment,
which is a prerequisite for any enforcement proceedings. Unless a foreign
judgment meets the conclusiveness test outlined in Section 13, it cannot be
enforced.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgements Meaning
1. Court Lacks Competence: If the foreign court was not qualified to hear
the case.
2. Not Decided on Merits: If the judgment did not involve the actual
evaluation of evidence and facts.
3. Incorrect Law: If it is based on a wrong interpretation of international law
or fails to apply Indian law when it is relevant.
4. Against Natural Justice: If the foreign court did not give the parties a fair
chance to present their cases.
5. Obtained by Fraud: If the judgment was obtained through deception or
misrepresentation.
6. Violation of Indian Law: If it supports a claim that breaks any law in force
in India.
7. Court Competence: For a foreign judgment to be conclusive, it must come
from a court that had the authority over the parties and the subject of the
dispute. A foreign court is considered to have jurisdiction if:
a. The defendant was living or present in that country when the case
started.
b. The defendant was a citizen or subject of that country.
c. The party challenging the jurisdiction had voluntarily accepted the
foreign court’s authority (e.g., by appearing in court).
8. In Bharat Nidhi Limited v. Megh Raj Mahajan (1964), the court ruled that a
foreign judgment must come from a competent foreign court to be
enforceable in India.
9. Not Decided on Merits: A foreign judgment is considered final only if it
was decided on the basis of evidence and facts. This means the court
must have examined the truthfulness of the claims rather than simply
giving a judgment due to the defendant’s failure to appear or respond.
10. Against Indian or International Law: If a foreign judgment is based on an
incorrect interpretation of international law or disregards Indian law where it
applies, it is not binding. This mistake must be clearly visible in the
proceedings.
11. Opposed to Natural Justice: A judgment must follow basic standards of
fairness, such as notifying the parties and giving each a chance to present
their case. However, the fact that the foreign court follows a different
procedure from Indian courts does not automatically mean it is against
natural justice. In Sankaran v. Lakshmi (1974), the Supreme Court noted
that natural justice concerns procedural fairness rather than the case's
substance.
12. Obtained by Fraud: In international law, any judgment obtained through
fraud does not act as res judicata. Fraud could involve deceiving the
foreign court or the other party about key facts. In Satya v. Teja Singh
(1975), the Supreme Court ruled that a judgment obtained by misleading
the foreign court about its jurisdiction was not binding.
13. Based on a Breach of Indian Law: Section 13(f) of the CPC does not
demand that foreign court procedures match Indian court procedures.
However, if a foreign judgment violates Indian laws, it will not be
enforceable in India.