Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Kassim Mamoojee vs Isuf Mahomed Sulliman on 14 May, 1902

Indian And General Investment Trust ... vs Sri Ramchandra Mardaraja Deo, Raja Of ... on 15 January, 1952

In fact he himself applied it in the case of 'KASSIM MAMOOJEE v. YUSUF MAHOMED SULUMAIN', 29 Cal 509. That was a case where the Supreme Court of Mauritus passed a decree against the defendant who was not residing in Mauritus when the decree was passed. It was argued that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were British subjects, with a common sovereign and hence were not foreigners. The learned Chief Justice however accepted the definition of Dicey given in his "Conflict of Laws" namely that "Foreign" means "not English." He rested his decision on the fact that the British Parliament had not given any power to the Courts of Mauritus to pass a decree against the British Subject wherever he may be. He would not countenance the passing of a decree by one Colonial Court against the British subject residing in another colony. It is apparent therefore that the real ground of the decision in '28 Cal 641', rests on the principle of overriding sovereignty residing in the British Crown over British subjects in a dependent colony of the British Empire, and the supreme power of the British Parliament to pass legislation which would be binding on such a colony. The point, however, is as to whether the principle can be applied to an order passed when India has progressively advanced in status from a colony to a self-governing dominion and from a self-governing dominion to a sovereign democratic republic, shedding even the last traces of subservience to the British Crown, namely, allegiance to the King.
Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ishri Prasad vs Sri Ram on 26 May, 1927

13. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below wrongly cast on the plaintiff the burden of proving the fact that the defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the Rampur Court, when the suit was filed in Rampur, has considerable force. The Courts below seem to have overlooked Section 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff did produce a certified copy of the judgment of the Rampur Court. On such copy being produced, it was imperative on the Courts below to presume that the judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary was proved. It is a well-settled rule of international law that Courts cannot, by their judgments, bind absent foreigners who have not submitted to their jurisdiction, and can only exercise jurisdiction over persons who are within the territorial limits of their jurisdiction, and, therefore, a judgment of a foreign Court obtained against a defendant cannot be enforced in British India where the defendant, at the time of the commencement of the suit, was not a subject of, nor resident in, the country in which the judgment was obtained: vide the case Kassim Mamoojee v. Isuf Mahomed Sulaiman [1902] 29 Cal. 509. That being so, in a suit based on a foreign judgment, one of the questions that arises for consideration is: Was the defendant, at the time of the commencement of the suit in the foreign Court, residing within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the State in which the suit was brought? But on the production of a certified copy of a foreign judgment the Court is bound to presume that the judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, it devolves on the defendant, by his pleading and evidence, to deny and disprove every fact and circumstance which negative the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1