India: Executability & Enforceability Of Foreign Judgments And Decrees In India: Judicial Trends ~ Part 1

Last Updated: 23 October 2000

Introduction

The emerging legal issues on "jurisdiction" as regards transactions over the internet can hardly ignore the legal aspects involved in the execution/enforcement of foreign decrees. Even after exercise of jurisdiction, the Courts may be unable to help the plaintiff in getting relief in case the local laws of the country concerned have certain restrictions for the execution/enforcement of foreign judgements or decrees in the country.

Under Indian Law, execution of decrees, whether foreign or domestic, is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) (as amended from time to time).1

Under the Indian law there are two ways of getting a foreign judgement enforced. Firstly by filing an Execution Petition under Section 44A of the CPC in case it falls in the criteria specified therein. Secondly by filing a fresh suit upon the foreign judgement/decree in the local jurisdiction.

Under S. 44A 2 of the CPC, a decree of any of the Superior Courts of any reciprocating territory are executable as a decree passed by the domestic Court. Therefore in case the decree does not pertain to a reciprocating territory or a Superior Court of a reciprocating territory 3, as notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the decree is not directly executable in India. In that case the decree a fresh suit 4 will have to be filed in India on the basis of such a decree or judgement, which may be construed as a cause of action for the said suit. In the fresh suit, the said decree will be treated as another piece of evidence against the defendant .5

However in both the cases as mentioned above, the foreign decree has to pass the test of S. 13 6 CPC which specifies certain exceptions under which a foreign judgement becomes inconclusive and is rendered in-executable or unenforceable in India.

Under S. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 a foreign judgment becomes inconclusive and consequently unenforceable in the following circumstances:

  1. where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
  2. where it has not been given on the merits of the case;
  3. where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;
  4. where the proceedings in which judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
  5. where it has been obtained by fraud;
  6. where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

In the present paper, the author has endeavoured to bring various decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts and other Courts of India under discussion to give a comprehensive view point on the law of execution of foreign decrees in India. Since S. 13 of CPC is the basic law for the execution of foreign decrees in India, each of the aforesaid exceptions, under S. 13 have been dealt with separately and at the end of each discussion, a broad proposition is derived from the decisions of the Courts is laid down so that it is easier to remember the law on the point. However, the proposition may not be exhaustive to cover all circumstances.

  1. Not Pronounced By A Court Of Competent Jurisdiction:

This is the first exception mentioned in S. 13 of CPC. In case the foreign court was not of competent jurisdiction, but still adjudicated the matter, the Indian executing Court may reject the execution of the foreign decree/judgment.

The following are the cases in which the Courts have held that there is no jurisdiction with the foreign Court and hence the Judgment or decree is unenforceable.

In the case of Moloji Nar Singh Rao v. Shankar Saran 7, a suit was filed by the plaintiff in a foreign Court for recovery of some amounts against the defendants. The Defendants did not appear despite service of the writ of summons. The suit thereafter was proceeded exparte against the defendants. The claim was decreed. The decree was brought to the local court for execution. After a round of litigation on the executability of the foreign decree the matter came up before the Supreme Court of India. The major issue which came up before the Court for consideration was "what conditions are necessary for giving jurisdiction to a foreign court before a foreign judgment is regarded as having extra-territorial validity." The Supreme Court in order to answer this issue relied upon the Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. III p. 144 para 257 (3rd Edition) and held that none of those conditions were satisfied in the present case. The Court while applying those conditions observed that:

  1. The respondents (defendants) were not the subjects of Gwalior (foreign country).
  2. They did not owe any allegiance to the Ruler of Gwalior and therefore they were under no obligation to accept the judgments of the Courts of that state.
  3. They were not residents in that state when the suit was instituted.
  4. They were not temporarily present in that State when the process was served on them.
  5. They did not in their character as plaintiffs in the foreign action themselves select the forum where the judgment was given against them
  6. They did not voluntarily appear in that court.
  7. They had not contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.

Therefore the Supreme Court held that the foreign decree was a nullity and could not be executed in the local courts. The Supreme Court further relied upon a Privy Council decision in the case of Sirdar Gurdial Singh v. Maharaja of Faridkot 8, delivered by Lord Selbourne, where it was held that

"In a personal action to which none of these causes of jurisdiction previously discussed apply, a decree pronounced in absentem by a foreign Court to the jurisdiction of which the defendant has not in any way submitted himself is by international law an absolute nullity. He is under no obligation of any kind to obey it, and it must be regarded as a mere nullity, by the Courts or every nation except (when authorized by special local legislation) in the country of the forum by which it was pronounced." 9

In the case of Andhra Bank Ltd.. v.R. Srinivasan 10,an interesting issue came up before the Court. In this case a suit had been filed against a guarantor in the proper jurisdiction. However during the pendency of the suit the guarantor/defendant died and the legal representatives of the said defendant were brought on record. When the decree was passed and came up for execution, the legal representatives questioned the executability of the decree on the basis that since they did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Court, therefore the decree was not executable against them under S. 13(a) of CPC. Now the Supreme Court was faced with the issue that whether, evenif the suit is validly instituted, but during the pendency of the suit one of the defendants expires and his non-resident foreign legal representatives are brought on record, does the rule of private international law in question (as referred to above in the case of Sirdar Gurdial Singh's case) invalidate the subsequent continuance of the said suits in the court before which they had been validly instituted? The Supreme Court after referring to a catena of cases, observed that the material time when the test of the rule of private international law is to be applied is the time at which the suit was instituted. Therefore it was held that the legal representatives, although foreigners were bound by the decree and the S. 13(a) could not help them in any way. 11

In the case of Kukadap Krishna Murthy v. Godmatla Venkata Rao 12, while relying upon the case of Sirdar Gurdial Singh's it was held by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that a decree passed in absentem was a total nullity as a foreign judgment, in other words, it is not a valid foreign judgment, the execution of which could be levied in Courts situated in a foreign territory. The Court further held as follows:

"Judged by Municipal Law, the adjudicating Court has no doubt jurisdiction to entertain proceedings when certain requirements are fulfilled. But that does not invest judgments rendered by such courts with validity, if they could not be regarded as Courts of competent jurisdiction. It cannot be open to much doubt that a decree of a court without jurisdiction is null and void. We are not persuaded that the interpretation placed by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court on the passage in question is warranted by the language thereof. It is true, as remarked by the learned Judges that S. 20 CPC vests in courts in British India a power to entertain suits in all cases where the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of that Court. To that extent, the jurisdiction to take cognizance of suits by that forum is authorized by special local legislation. This section enables Courts in British India to pass decrees which are capable of execution as domestic judgments. It deals only with matters of domestic concern and prescribes rules for the assumption of territorial jurisdiction by British Indian Courts in causes with their cognizance. The operation of the decrees passed by these Municipal Courts is confined to the limits of their jurisdiction as conferred on them by the relevant provisions of the CPC. As foreign judgments, they have no validity and they are, as it were non est so far as the area outside the jurisdiction of the adjudicating Courts is concerned, if they do not conform to the principles of Private International Law. Such a judgment is an absolute nullity in the international sense." 13

In the case of R.M.V. Vellachi Achi v. R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar 14, it was alleged by the respondent that since he was not a subject of the foreign country, and that he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court (Singapore Court), the decree could not be executed in India. The Appellant, in defense of this argument, stated that the Respondent was a partner of a firm which was doing business in Singapore and had instituted various suits in the Singapore Courts. Therefore, the Appellant argued, that the Respondent had accepted the Singapore Courts jurisdiction. The Court held that it was the firm which had accepted the jurisdiction of the foreign Court and the Respondent, in an individual capacity, had not accepted the jurisdiction. 15This was one of the reasons for which the High Court held that the decree against the Respondent was not executable.

In the case of K.N. Guruswami v. Muhammad Khan Sahib 16, it was alleged that since the defendants were carrying on business in a partnership in the foreign state on the date of the action, and that the suit related to certain dealings with the firm, the issue of jurisdiction should be presumed against the defendants although an ex parte decree had been passed against them. The Court held that a mere fact of entering into a contract in the foreign country, does not lead to the inference that the defendant had agreed to be bound by the decisions of the Courts of that country. Therefore it was held that the decree was passed against the defendants without any jurisdiction.

The High Court in the above case had referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Ramanathan Chettiar v. Kalimuthu Pillai 17, which lays down the circumstances when the foreign courts would have jurisdiction under this Section. The circumstances mentioned are as follows:

  1. Where the person is a subject of the foreign country in which the judgment has been obtained against him on prior occasions.
  2. Where he is a resident in foreign country when the action is commenced.
  3. Where a person selects the foreign Court as the forum for taking action in the capacity of a plaintiff, in which forum he is sued later
  4. Where the party on summons voluntarily appears
  5. Where by an agreement a person has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment is obtained.

However, the Madras High Court in the case of Oomer Hajee Ayoob Sait v. Thirunavukkarasu Pandaram 18, distinguished the ratio in the case of Ramanathan Chettiar, by holding that a person who has filed suits in a Court having jurisdiction to try them, cannot by implication be taken to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the same Court in cases where that Court has no jurisdiction.

In the case of Sankaran v. Lakshmi 19, an interesting situation arose for the Supreme Court's consideration. The issue was whether the minors had an opportunity of contesting the proceedings in the English Court, if notices of the proceedings were served on thier natural guardians but they did not appear on behalf of the minors although they put in appearance in the proceedings in their personal Capacity and what could the foreign court do except to appoint a court guardian for the minors. The Supreme Court held that since the natural guardians had not entered appearance on behalf of the minors, the minors through the guardians could not be said to have submitted to the foreign court's jurisdiction and therefore the judgment qua them was a nullity. 20

In the case of Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi 21, the Supreme Court in respect of a matrimonial dispute held that only those Courts which the Act (statute) or the law under which the parties are married recognizes as a court of competent jurisdiction can entertain the matrimonial disputes in that regard unless both parties voluntarily, and unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that court.

In the case of Satya v. Teja 22, while dealing with a matrimonial dispute, the Supreme Court held that the challenge under S. 13 was not limited to civil disputes alone but could also be taken in criminal proceedings. In this case a foreign decree of divorce obtained by the husband from the Nevada State Court in USA in absentum of the wife without her submitting to its jurisdiction was held to be not binding and valid upon a criminal court in proceedings for maintenance.23

In the case of Ramkisan Janakilal v. Seth Harmukharai Lachminarayan 24, a division bench of the Nagpur High Court while following the decision in the case of Sirdar Gudyal Singh, held that a mere fact that a contract was made in the foreign country did not clothe the foreign court with jurisdiction in an action 'in personam'. Further it was held that a person cannot be held to have submitted to the jurisdiction of a foreign court if his attempt to get the ex-parte judgment set aside fails. It was held that the submission to the jurisdiction of a foreign court has to be before the foreign decree is passed.25

The case of I&G Investment Trust v. Raja of Khalikote 26, involved an action initiated in England against an Indian subject (Respondent) on the basis of a contract which was governed by the English Law. In this regard, the Calcutta High Court, while considering that under Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules of England, summons could be served upon a person outside the jurisdiction of the English Courts (assumed jurisdiction), on the basis that a contract governed by English law had been breached, held that since only the payments were governed by English law, a willingness to submit to the English Jurisdiction could not be shown.27 The Court in obiter dictum observed that even though it is held that the contract is governed by the English law, it could not be assumed to give jurisdiction in the International sense, although it may give rise to a cause of action.28 On this basis the Calcutta High Court held that the decree was not executable in India.

In the case of Narappa Naicken v. Govindaraju Naicken 29, it was held that failing in an action to set aside a foreign decree in the foreign Courts does not amount to submission to jurisdiction, however, in case the decree is set aside and the party is allowed to plead and a new decree is passed then the defendant would be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.

In the case of Thirunavakkaru Pandaram v. Parasurama Ayyar 30, it was held that if a party has once appeared before a foreign court in the character of the plaintiff, it does not mean that he is forever afterwards to be regarded as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court in any subsequent action, by any person or upon any cause of action, which may be brought against him.

In the case of VithalBhai ShivaBhai Patel v. Lalbhai Bhimbhai 31, the Bombay High Court held that the mere fact that the transaction on which the suit had been instituted in the foreign Court, was effected during the time the defendant's agent, holding a power of attorney of the defendant, which on the date of institution of the suit had expired, was living in the foreign Country, does not amount to submission to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court. However in obiter dictum the Court observed that in case the power of attorney holder is in the foreign Court and the summons are served upon him, then it may amount to submission to the jurisdiction of the Court.

The following are the cases in which the Courts have held that there is jurisdiction with the foreign Court.

The Supreme Court in the case of Shalig Ram v. Firm Daulatram Kundanmal 32, held that filing of an application for leave to defend a summary suit in a foreign court amounted to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.

In the case of Chormal Balchand Firm v. Kasturi Chand 33, the Calcutta High Court while considering the issue of submission to jurisdiction held that in case a defendant appears in the Court where the suit is instituted and questions both the jurisdiction and challenges the action on merits, he is said to have submitted to the jurisdiction voluntarily.

In the case of Oomer Hajee Ayoob Sait v. Thirunavukkarasu Pandaram 34, the Madras High Court while dealing with the issue of submission to jurisdiction held that mere conduct or circumstances indicative of intention to submit to the jurisdiction is enough to derive a conclusion of submission to jurisdiction. In the present case, during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff effected attachment before judgment of certain property of the defendant and the defendant by a letter acknowledged the attachment and requested merely for a concession, which was not a conditional request and when the offer is refused and the defendant remained ex parte and the suit was decreed, it was deemed that the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.

In the case of V. Subramania Aiyar v. Annasami Iyer 35, the Madras High Court while dealing with the issue whether there was submission to the jurisdiction of a foreign Court in the circumstances that the defendant had appeared in the foreign Court due to a Commission having been appointed to get the defendant summoned and examined as a witness, and that the defendant pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and he objected to the questions put to him in examination and got himself cross examined, it was held that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign Court.

In the case of British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries Ltd.36 the Supreme Court held that eventhough the defendant had taken the plea of lack of jurisdiction before the trial Court but did not take the plea before the Appeal Court or in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, it amounted to submission to jurisdiction.

Proposition

By reading the aforesaid cases under Section 13(a) of CPC the following proposition may be laid:

In case of actions-in-personam, a Foreign Court may pass a decree or judgment against an Indian defendant, who is served with the summons but has chosen to remain ex parte. But the said judgment or decree may be enforceable against such a defendant in India, only if by fulfilling any of the following conditions it can be shown that the Foreign Court had jurisdiction upon the Indian defendant:

  • Where the person is a subject of the foreign country in which the judgment has been obtained against him on prior occasions.
  • Where he is a resident in foreign country when the action is commenced.
  • Where a person selects the foreign Court as the forum for taking action in the capacity of a plaintiff, in which forum he is sued later
  • Where the party on summons voluntarily appears
  • Where by an agreement a person has contracted to submit himself to the forum in which the judgment is obtained.
  • Footnotes

    1. In the present paper only enforcement of foreign decrees is discussed.

    2. S. 44A. Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory- (1) Where a certified copy of decree of any of the superior Courts of [***} any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court.

    (2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior Court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.

    (3) The provisions of section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13.

    [Explanation I- "Reciprocating territory’ means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and "superior courts’, with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification.

    Explanation 2-‘Decree’ with reference to a superior court means any decree or judgment of such Court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment].

    3. Some of the countries which have been declared as reciprocating territories:

      1. On 3.1.56, Federation of Malaya (now Malaysia) and the High Court and the Courts of Appeal as the Superior Court
      2. On 18.1.56, Colony of Aden and Supreme Court of Aden as the superior Court
      3. On 15.10.1957, New Zealand and Cook Islands, Turst Territory of Western Samoa and the Supreme Court of New Zealand as the Superior Court
      4. On 21.1.1961, Sikkim and the High court of Sikkim or any other court whose jurisdiction is not limited to a pecuniary jurisdiction.
      5. On 15.7.1961, Burma all civil and revenue courts as Superior Courts.
      6. On 1.3.53, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the House of Lords, Court of Appeals, High Court of England, the Court of Sessions in Scotland, the High court in Northern Ireland, the Court of Chancery of the County Panlatine or Lancaster and the Court of Chancery of the county Palantine or Durham as the Superior Courts.
      7. On 22.3.54, Colony of Fiji and the Supreme Court of Fiji as the Superior Court
      8. On 23.11.68, Hong Kong and republic of Singapore
      9. On 1.9.66, Trinidad and Tobago
      10. On 26.9.70, Papua New Guinea and Supreme Court as the superior court
      11. On 6.3.76, Bangladesh and Supreme Court and Courts of District and subordinate judges as the Superior Court.
      12. Canada and the Supreme Court of Ontario, please see the decision in the case of Gurdas Mann v. Mohinder Singh, AIR 1993 P&H 92.

    Source is the AIR Manual 5th edition, volume 4.

    4. Refer Moloji Nar Singh Rao v. Shankar Saran, AIR 1962 SC 1737 at p. 1748 para 14. Also see I & G Investment Trust v. Raja of Khalikote, AIR 1952 Cal. 508 at 523 para 38.

    5. S. 14 of CPC stipulates that "Presumption as to foreign judgments.-The Court shall presume upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction." The Orissa High Court in the case of Padmini Mishra v. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, AIR 1991 Ori. 263 at p. 266, held that when a party to a proceeding before a court at New York did not take any plea about want of jurisdiction of the court at New York and allowed the matter to proceed ex parte, the presumption under S. 14 has to be made. However this presumption is rebuttable.

    6. S. 13. When foreign judgment not conclusive.-A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except-

    (a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;

    (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;

    (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;

    (d) where the proceedings in which judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;

    (e) where it has been obtained by fraud;

    (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.

    7. AIR 1962 SC 1737. This is a Constitution Bench decision consisting of 5 judges of the Supreme Court of India.

    8. 21 Ind. App. 171. Also see A.S. Subramaniam Chettiar v. M.K. Srinivasa Ayyar, AIR 1951 Mad. 289;

    9. Ibid. at p. 185.

    10. AIR 1962 SC 232.

    11. However, due to the operation of S. 52 of CPC, the decree was executable only against the properties of the deceased defendants in the hands of the legal representatives.

    12. AIR 1962 A.P. 400.

    13. Ibid. at p. 403, para 16.

    14. AIR 1973 Mad. 141.

    15. Ibid. at p. 143 para 23.

    16. AIR 1933 Mad 112.

    17. AIR 1914 Mad. 556; Cf. Ibid. at p. 143 para 16. Also see Chormal Balchand Firm Chowrahat v. Kasturi Chand Seraoji, AIR 1938 Cal 511 at p. 515 para

    18. AIR 1936 Mad. 553 at 554.

    19. AIR 1974 SC 1764.

    20. Ibid. at p. 1776 para 40.

    21. (1991)3 SCC 451.

    22. AIR 1975 SC 105.

    23. Ibid. at p. 117 para 49.

    24 AIR 1955 Nag. 103.

    25. Ibid. at p. 106 para 11.

    26. AIR 1952 Cal. 508.

    27. Ibid. at p. 519 para 32.

    28. Ibid. at p. 521 paras 35 and 38. This decision has relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Moazzin Hossein Khan v. Raphael Robinson, ILR 28 Cal 641.

    29. AIR 1934 Mad. 434.

    30. AIR 1937 Mad. 97 at p. 99.

    31. AIR 1942 Bom 199 at p. 202.

    32. AIR 1967 SC 739. This view was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalji Ram and Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, AIR 1971 SC 974.

    33. AIR 1938 Cal 511 at 516.

    34. AIR 1936 Mad. 552.

    35. AIR 1948 Mad. 203.

    36. (1990)3 SCC 481 at p. 495.

    The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

    Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

     
    In association with
    Up-coming Events Search
    Tools
    Print
    Font Size:
    Translation
    Channels
    Mondaq on Twitter
     
    Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
    This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
     
    Email Address
    Company Name
    Password
    Confirm Password
    Position
    Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
     Accounting
     Anti-trust
     Commercial
     Compliance
     Consumer
     Criminal
     Employment
     Energy
     Environment
     Family
     Finance
     Government
     Healthcare
     Immigration
     Insolvency
     Insurance
     International
     IP
     Law Performance
     Law Practice
     Litigation
     Media & IT
     Privacy
     Real Estate
     Strategy
     Tax
     Technology
     Transport
     Wealth Mgt
    Regions
    Africa
    Asia
    Asia Pacific
    Australasia
    Canada
    Caribbean
    Europe
    European Union
    Latin America
    Middle East
    U.K.
    United States
    Worldwide Updates
    Registration
    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions