Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 102 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Satya vs Teja Singh on 1 October, 1974

Hemavathi Shivashankar vs Dr Tumkur S Shivashankar on 5 July, 2012

What is required is that there must have been a judgment. What the nature of that judgment should be is also indicated by the opening portion of the section where it is stated that the judgment must have directly adjudicated upon questions arising between the parties. The court must have applied its mind to that material and must have considered the evidence made available to it in order that it may be said that there has 65 been adjudication upon the merits of the case. It cannot be said that the said decision on merits is possible only in cases where the defendant enters appearance and contest the plaintiff's case. Even where the defendant chooses to remain ex parte, it is possible for the plaintiff to adduce evidence in support of his claim. The decision on merits involves application of mind of the court to the truth or falsity of the plaintiff's case and therefore, though a judgment passed after the judicial consideration of the matter by taking evidence may be a decision on the merits, even though passed ex parte, a decision passed without evidence of any kind or passed only on its pleadings cannot be held to be a decision on merits.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - A Byrareddy - Full Document

Dipak Banerjee vs Mrs. Sudipta Banerjee And Anr. on 23 July, 1987

In the reported decision of the Supreme Court in Sm. Satya v. Teja Singh it was decided that where it is a problem of Municipal Law or of conflict of laws, every case which comes before Indian Court must be decided in accordance with the Indian Law. It is another matter that the Indian conflict of laws may require that law of foreign country shall be applied in a given situation for deciding a case which contains a "foreign element". Such recognition is accorded not as an act of courtesy but on consideration of justice. It is implicit in that proposition that foreign law must not be against our public policy. That however was a case of the application of a foreign judgment which was void ab initio, if not voidable, on ground of fraud which could not be taken as sacrosanct and of a binding character, obtained against an Indian wife residing in India. Though the facts are otherwise in variance with the present case, it would not be out of place to quote a particular observation of the Supreme Court which is not devoid of context". We cannot therefore adopt mechanically rule of Private Inter-national Law evolved by others. These principles vary greatly and are moulded by the respective social, political and economic conditions in this country". Taking in view the object and social purpose of Sections 125 and 126 of the Cri.P.C. I do hold that the objection raised by the petitioner is absolutely untenable in lay and should be rejected altogether.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dipak Banerjee vs Sudipta Banerjee on 23 July, 1987

In the reported decision of the Supreme Court in Sm. Satya v. Teja Singh it was decided that where it is a problem of Municipal Law or of conflict of laws, every case which comes before Indian Court must be decided in accordance with the Indian Law. It is another matter that the Indian conflict of laws may require that law of foreign country shall be applied in a given situation for deciding a case which contains a "foreign element." Such recognition is accorded not as an act of courtesy but on consideration of justice. It is implicit in that proposition that foreign law must not be against our public policy. That however was a case of the application of a foreign judgment which was void ab initio if not voidable on ground of fraud which could not be taken as sacrosanct and of a binding character obtained against an Indian wife residing in India. Though the facts are otherwise in variance with the present case, it would not be out of place to quote a particular observation of the Supreme Court which is not devoid of context. "We cannot therefore adopt mechanically rule of Private International Law evolved by others. These principles vary greatly and are moulded by the respective social, political and economic conditions in this country." Taking in view the object and social purpose of Section 125 and 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I do hold that the objection raised by the petitioner is absolutely untenable in law and should be rejected altogether.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Aditya Prasad vs Perena Gupta on 26 November, 2025

10. Relying on a decision of this Court in Smt Satya v. Teja Singh [(1975) 1 SCC 120 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 50 : (1975) 2 SCR 197 : AIR 1975 SC 105] it is possible for us to dispose of this case on a narrow ground, viz., that the appellant played a fraud on the foreign court representing to it incorrect jurisdictional facts. For, as held in that case, residence does not mean a temporary residence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce but habitual residence or residence which is intended to be permanent for future as well. We refrain from adopting that course in the present case because there is nothing on record to assure us that the court of St. Louis does not assume jurisdiction only on the basis of a mere temporary residence of the appellant for 90 days even if such residence is for the purpose of obtaining divorce. We would, therefore, presume that the foreign court by its own rules of jurisdiction had rightly entertained the dispute and granted a valid decree of divorce according to its law. The larger question that we would like to address ourselves to is whether even in such cases, the courts in this country should recognise the foreign divorce decrees.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Ravi Kumar C vs Central Adoption Resource Authority on 26 March, 2024

The Trial Court has relying upon the above decision held that the decree passed by the American Court falls in exception-3 carved out by the Supreme Court in the 31 passage extracted above. The parties to the proceedings before the Court in America having consented to the grant of relief prayed for in the same, the decree passed by the said Court will remain binding and conclusive between them, the alleged error of jurisdiction notwithstanding. We shall presently advert to that aspect, but before we do so, We need to deal with two other submissions that were made before us on behalf of the respondent-wife. It was contended that the decree passed by the American Court was final and conclusive under Section 13 between the parties to the same. The binding and conclusive nature of such a decree could be assailed only on one of the grounds available under Section 13 of the CPC that a party to the decree or any person claiming under them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Y. Narasimha Rao And Ors vs Y. Venkata Lakshmi And Anr on 9 July, 1991

8. Relying on a decision of this Court in Smt. Satya v. Teja Singh, [1975] 2 SCR 1971 it is possible for us to dispose of this case on a narrow ground, viz., that the appellant played a fraud on the foreign court residence does not mean a temporary residence for the purpose of obtaining a divorce but habitual residence or residence which is intended to be permanent for future as well. We remain from adopting that course in the present case because there is nothing on record to assure us that the Court of St. Louis does not assume jurisdiction only on the basis of a mere temporary residence of the appellant for 90 days even is such residence is for the purpose of obtaining divorce. We would, therefore, presume that the foreign court by its own rules of jurisdiction had rightly entertained the dispute and granted a valid decree of divorce according to its law. The larger question that we would like to address ourselves to is whether even in such cases, the Courts in this country should recognise the foreign divorce decrees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 92 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Shiv Indersen Mirchandani Of Bombay And ... vs Natasha Harish Advani Alias Natasha ... on 5 December, 2001

It is true that in both Teja Singh and Narsimhrao (supra) the Supreme Court refused to recognize divorce decrees passed by Foreign Courts but such refusal was on the ground of fraud in connection with jurisdictional fact. In the latter case the guideline with regard to the interpretation of Clause (a) of section 13 is that it should be interpreted "to mean that only that Court will be a Court of competent jurisdiction which the Act or the law under which the parties are married recognizes as a Court of competent jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial jurisdiction. Any other Court should be held to be a Court without jurisdiction unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that Court. In the instant case, the deceased was a Hindu and defendant No. 8 is a Christian. They were married not under the Hindu Law in India but in civil form in New York, USA in 1952. It is not brought on record as to what was the law in 1952 prevailing in New York governing civil form of marriages. But it is clear that both the deceased and defendant No. 8 voluntarily and unconditionally submitted to the jurisdiction of the Swedish Court. Therefore, applying the aforesaid interpretation of Clause (a) of section 13, the Swedish Court will have to be held as a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - J A Patil - Full Document

Deva Prasad Reddy vs Kamini Reddy And Anr. on 19 April, 2002

The Trial Court has relied upon the above decision held that the decree passed by the American Court falls in exception-3 carved out by the Supreme Court in the passage extracted above. The parties to the proceedings before the Court in America having consented to the grant of relief prayed for in the same, the decree passed by the said Court will remain binding and conclusive between them, the alleged error of jurisdiction notwithstanding. We shall presently advert to that aspect, but before We do so. We need to deal with two other submissions that were made before us on behalf of the respondent-wife. It was contended that the decree passed by the American Court was final and conclusive under Section 13 between the parties to the same. The binding and conclusive nature of such a decree could be assailed only on one of the grounds available under Section 13 of the CPC that too by party to the decree or any person claiming under them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Arun Sardana vs Smt. Tina Sardana on 10 October, 2014

35 In any case, he has not been able to make out any cause of action whatsoever to seek an injunction against the defendant from filing the petition for divorce in Georgia Courts, at USA or from continuing the proceedings there. 36 As regards the reliance on the decision in the case of 'Smt. Satya Vs. Sh. Teja Singh', as well, the same is also of no help to the plaintiff, and rather, it is once again absolutely, misconceived, in as much as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein was of the view in favour of not granting an anti­suit CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 18/32 injunction, rather than granting it, particularly in the matrimonial cases, and in fact, the said case was not even about the grant of injunction or otherwise, but it was about giving or not giving recognition to foreign decree of divorce, which was in question.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next