Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani vs United Arab Republic And Anr on 5 August, 1965
This decision came up in appeal before this Court in Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic and Anr. and this Court upheld the Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court and held that Section 86(1) of the CPC as it stood at the relevant time was the statutory provision covering a field which would otherwise be covered by the doctrine of immunity under International Law and save and except in accordance with the procedure indicated in Section 86 of the Code a suit against a foreign State would not lie.
United Arab Republic And Anr. vs Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani on 17 April, 1961
17. With the observations of Lord Denning on the question of immunity of the foreign states, the other Law Lords disassociated themselves. Mr. Justice Bachawat, speaking for the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, rejected the contention urged by counsel in United Arab Republic and Anr. v. Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani (supra) that the foreign State enjoyed the same immunity as a domestic state enjoyed and no more.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 87 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 87B in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Maharaj Kumar Tokendra Bir Singh vs Secretary To The Goi Ministry Of Home ... on 23 March, 1964
22. Dr. Gauri Shankar had drawn our attention to Maharaj Kumar Tokendra Bir Singh v. Secretary, to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr. which deals with the conditions under which sanction under Section 87B of the Code are obtained and observed that in granting the consent, the Central Government was not to adjudicate upon the correctness of the claim. The Court noted that the power conferred on the Central Government to refuse to accord consent to the proposed suit shall be carefully exercised. These principles would be applicable to the facts of this case. It is true that these provisions both of Sections 86 and 87 are intended to save the foreign states from harassment which would be caused by the institution of a suit but except in cases where the claim appears to be frivulous patently, the Central Government should normally accord consent or give sanction against foreign states unless there are cogent political and other reasons. Normally, however, it is not the function of the Central Government to attempt to adjudicate upon the merits of the case intended to be made by the litigants in their proposed suits. It is the function of the courts of competent jurisdiction and the Central Government cannot under Section 86 of the Code usurp that function. The power given to the Central Government must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in consonance with the principle that reasons must appear from the order. We may note that in the counter-affidavit we do not find any such cogent reasons or due consideration.
1