Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Again, the view taken in England, though not shared by several foreign countries, is that an English Court cannot order payment except in English currency."

47. Performance of an obligation to pay the pensions in sterling in the United Kingdom, became all the more incapable of being enforced through an Indian court after Independence. Apart from the fact that such an obligation no longer existed, the Dominion of India could not be compelled by an Indian court to perform an act which became one of extra-territorial nature after Independence. At any rate no decree enjoining performance of such an act could be passed by a Civil Court in India by reason of the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1871. As to enforceability of the right in the United Kingdom, under Section 7(a) of the Indian Independence Act, His Majesty's Government ceased to have any responsibility as respects the government of the territories of the Dominion of India and nothing could thereafter form the basis for the institution of a legal proceeding in respect of the pensions in the United Kingdom. Further, under Section 176 of the Government of India Act as modified by the 1947 Order the authority to be sued in respect of any claim against the Government of India was the Dominion of India or the Province, according as the suit related to the sphere of the one or the other, and no suit was maintainable against the Secretary of State in Council. Even against the Dominion of India or any Province no suit or other legal proceeding was entertainable in a Court in the United Kingdom. In Dicey's Conflict of Laws (Seventh Edition) it has been stated at page 129 as a general rule of jurisdiction that the English Court "has no jurisdiction to entertain an action or other legal proceeding against any foreign State, or the head, or government or any department of the government of any foreign State", and the comments on the above rule at pages 133 and 134 show that the Dominion of India was a foreign State for the purpose of jurisdictional immunity. Reference in this connection has to be made to Kahan v. Federation of Pakistan, (1951) 2 K.B. 1003, where the question whether the Federation of Pakistan was a foreign State for the purpose of a suit in English Courts arose for consideration. Slade, J. against whose judgment appeal was taken to the Court of Appeal had, in accordance with the practice long recognized in cases in which the status of a defendant claiming to be a Sovereign State was in question, sought the advice of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, The advice that had been received was that under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and by reason of the Constitutional Conventions, "Pakistan is a self-governing country within the British Commonwealth of Nations, Sovereign both in internal and in external affairs, linked with the United Kingdom through a common allegiance to the Crown, but in other respects independent of it", and the advice had been finally summed up by saying: "In the view of the Secretary of State, therefore, Pakistan is an independent Sovereign State. Slade J., again following the recognized practice had accepted the advice or certificate as conclusive evidence for the purpose of that case and had dismissed the appeal preferred before him against an order of the Master. Before the court of Appeal the counsel for the appellant accepted the conclusiveness of the certificate issued by the Secretary of State and the appeal was decided on the footing that the status of the Federation of Pakistan was equivalent to that of a foreign State. Dealing with this aspect of the case Jenkins L. J. observed: