Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Section 44A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M/S. International Woolen Mills vs M/S. Standard Wool (U.K.) Limited on 25 April, 2001
(vi) In INTERNATIONAL WOOLEN MILLS vs.
STANDARD WOOL (UK) LTD,10 the Apex Court having
considered most of the above rulings along with many
other inter alia surveyed the law relating to foreign
judgement as contemplated u/s.13(b) of CPC and at para
19 observed: "... that the decree would not be on merits if
the court has not gone through and considered the case of
the plaintiff and taken evidence of the witnesses of the
plaintiff. It must also be noted that in this case the Court
ultimately held that the decree concerned was not a
decree on merits". In fact, the text of the foreign
judgement involved in the said case largely matches with
that of the judgements of Illinois Court.
Somawanti vs State Of Punjab & Others on 7 November, 2011
7.2 Section 13, subject to exceptions enumerated
thereunder makes a foreign judgement rendered on merits
conclusive proof of the matter in it and its production per
se in the Indian Court is sufficient. This provision gives an
artificial probative effect to it, and no evidence is allowed
to be lead for combating that effect. When the law says
that a particular kind of evidence would be conclusive, that
fact can be proved either by that evidence or by some
other evidence which the court permits or requires. When
such other evidence is adduced, it would be open to the
court to consider whether upon that evidence the fact
exists or not. On the other hand, when evidence which is
made conclusive is adduced, the court/tribunal has no
option but to hold that the fact exists. There is no
difference between 'conclusive proof' and 'conclusive
evidence' vide Somawanti v. State of Punjab 11 A
foreign judgement that does not attract the substantive
part of Section 13 of CPC, would not enjoy the status of
conclusive proof/evidence, cannot be disputed. However,
this does not mean that such a judgement if adduced as a
11
1962 SCC OnLine SC 23
Section 15 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Jamuna Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh 121 ... on 3 November, 2017
(ii) In RAM CHAND v. JOHN BARTETT5, Chintamoni
Pandhan v. Paika Samal, overruled.
Chintamoni Padhan And Ors. vs Paika Samal And Ors. on 17 February, 1956
(ii) In RAM CHAND v. JOHN BARTETT5, Chintamoni
Pandhan v. Paika Samal, overruled.
Derby Mcintyre And Co. Ltd. vs Mitter And Co. on 16 January, 1935
(iv) The Calcutta High Court has also come to a
similar conclusion in the case of DERBY MCINTYRE &
CO. LTD. v. MITTER & CO.7. The Calcutta High Court said
6
AIR 1928 Rangoon 319
7
(1935) 39 Cal WN 557
1