India: Executability & Enforceability Of Foreign Judgments And Decrees In India: Judicial Trends Part 2

Last Updated: 23 October 2000
This article is part of a series: Click Executability & Enforceability Of Foreign Judgments And Decrees In India: Judicial Trends ~ Part 1 for the previous article.
B. Not Given On The Merits Of The Case:

This exception in S. 13 is basically for the purpose of ensuring that the judgment or decree is totally conclusive in nature and the plaintiff's claim has been assessed by the foreign Court before a judgment is rendered upon it.

The following are the cases in which the Courts have held that the judgments were not passed on the merits of the case and hence were inconclusive.

The fountainhead of all decisions under this head has been the decision of the Privy Council in the case of D.T. Keymer v. P. Viswanatham37. In this case, a suit for money was brought in the English Courts against the defendant as partner of a certain firm, wherein the latter denied that he was a partner and also that any money was due. Thereupon the defendant was served with certain interrogatories to be answered. On his omission to answer them his defence was struck off and judgment entered for the plaintiff. When the judgment was sought to be enforced in India, the defendant raised the objection that the judgment had not been rendered on the merits of the case and hence was not conclusive under the meaning of S. 13(b) of CPC. The matter reached the Privy Council, where the Court held that since the defendant's defence was struck down and it was treated as if the defendant had not defended the claim and the claim of the plaintiff was not investigated into, the decision was not conclusive in the meaning of S. 13(b) and therefore, could not be enforced in India.

The aforesaid decision of the Privy Council was relied upon and further explained in the case of R.E. Mahomed Kassim & Co. v. Seeni Pakir-bin Ahmed38 by a full bench of the Madras High Court. In this case the defendants were properly served however they did not appear. According to one of the rules of procedure of the foreign Court, in case defendants are properly served but do not appear and contest and the judgment is given for the plaint claim without any trial, judgment was entered up in favour of the plaintiff as a matter of course. This is what had happened in the present case and the judgment had been entered in favour of the plaintiff as a matter of course without any trial. The judgment was brought to India for enforcement. The defendants resisted the enforcement on the basis that the judgment was not conclusive since it was not passed on the merits of the case. The matter reached the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, wherein it was held that a decree obtained on default of appearance of the defendant without any trial on evidence is a case where the judgment must be held not to have been on the merits of the case.39 In the obiter dictum the Court observed that in a case where there was default in appearance, but however the claim of the plaintiff was tried in full on evidence and the plaintiff proved his case, the decision may be treated as a judgment on the merits of the case. 40

In the case of Gudemetla China Appalaraju v. Kota Venkata Subba Rao 41, an interesting issue arose concerning S. 13(b) of CPC. In this case it was questioned whether a consent decree obtained in a foreign court could be regarded as a decision given on the merits of the case within the meaning of S. 13 of CPC. The Court held that a decree to be conclusive within the meaning of S. 13 of CPC, there should be a controversy and an adjudication thereon. It was further observed since in the present case there was no controversy and that there was no dispute before the Court to decide, the decree was passed mechanically in accordance with a prescribed Rule. Therefore the Court held that the judgment was not on the merits of the claim and therefore was not conclusive within the meaning of S. 13 of CPC.42

In the case of Gurdas Mann v. Mohinder Singh Brar 43, the Punjab & Harayana High Court held that an exparte judgment and decree which did not show that the plaintiff had led evidence to prove his claim before the Court, was not executable under S. 13(b) of the CPC since it was not passed on the merits of the claim.

In the case of K.M. Abdul Jabbar v. Indo Singapore Traders P. Ltd.44 , the Madras High Court held that passing of a decree after refusing the leave to defend sought for by the defendant was not a conclusive judgment within the meaning of S. 13(b) of CPC.

In the case of Middle East Bank Ltd. V. Rajendra Singh Sethia 45, the Calcutta High Court held that a judgment and decree given by default under a summary procedure contemplated by Order 14 of the Supreme Court Rules of England, in the absence of appearance by the defendant and filing of any defence by him, and without any consideration of the plaintiff's evidence is not a judgment given on the merits of the case and hence is not conclusive within the meaning of S. 13(b) of CPC. Therefore the decree is not executable in India.

In the case of M.K. Sivagaminatha Pillai v. K. Nataraja Pillai 46, the Madras High Court held that even though a decree in a foreign court may be passed ex parte, it will be binding if evidence was taken and the decision was given on a consideration of the evidence. In this case the defendant was ordered to pay a part of the suit claim as a security for the purpose of defending the claim. However the defendant failed to make the payment of the security and on that basis the court passed the decree against the defendant. The court on the above principle held that the judgment and decree was not enforceable in India under S. 13.

In the case of Y. Narsimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi 47, the Supreme Court while interpreting S. 13(b) of CPC held that the decision should be a result of the contest between the parties. The latter requirement is fulfilled only when the respondent is duly served and voluntarily and unconditionally submits himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the court and contests the claim, or agrees to the passing of the decree with or without appearance. The Court further held that a mere filing of the reply to the claim under protest and without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court, or an appearance in the court either in person or through a representative for objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, should not be considered as a decision on the merits of the case. 48

In the case of R.M.V. Vellachi Achi v. R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar 49, the Madras High Court held that if the foreign judgment is not based upon the merits, whatever the procedure might be in the foreign country in passing judgments, those judgments will not be conclusive. 50

In the case of B. Nemichand Sowcar v. Y.V. Rao 51, a suit was instituted in the foreign Court where the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. On the day of the hearing the defendant remained absent. The court passed a decree without hearing any evidence. The Madras High Court held that the decree was not passed on the merits of the case and hence inconclusive within the meaning of S. 13(b) of CPC.

In the case of Firm Tijarati Hindu Family Joint Kesar Das Rajan Singh v. Parma Nand Vishan Dass 52, a peculiar situation arose. In this case the plaintiff had filed a suit on the basis of a promissory note. However, the plaintiff himself left the country and in subsequent proceedings since he was unable to provide the promissory note to his advocate in the foreign country the suit got dismissed. The plaintiff later on filed another suit in the local courts. The defendant took the plea that the present suit was barred by res judicata. The Court held that the judgment on the previous suit since it did not touch upon the merits of the case, therefore could not be held to be res judicata for the present suit 53.

In the case of A.N. Abdul Rahman v. J.M. Mahomed Ali Rowther 54, it was held that a decision on the merits involves the application of the mind of the court to the truth or falsity of the plaintiff's case and, therefore, though a judgment passed after a 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 and merely on the pleadings cannot be held to be a decision on the merits.

In the case of Algemene Bank Nederland NV v. Satish Dayalal Choksi55 the facts were that a summary suit was filed against the defendant in a foreign country. The defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. He filed his defence but at the final hearing he failed to appear. Hence an ex parte decree was pronounced in favour of the plaintiff. The judgment stated that "the defendant having failed to appear and upon proof of the plaintiff's claim" judgment is entered for the plaintiff. The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court after verifying the exhibits filed by the Plaintiff before the foreign Court observed that the foreign Court seems to have proceeded to pronounce the judgment in view of the defendant's failure to appear at the hearing of the case to defend the claim on merits. On that basis the Court held that the judgment was not on the basis of the merits of the case. This decision was appealed against in Appeal No. 869 of 1990 whose decision is hereinbelow.

In Algemene Bank Nederland NV v. Satish Dayalal Choksi (Appeal No. 869 of 1990, unreported judgment decided on 3.8.92), the Bombay High Court reversed the findings of the Single Judge after appreciating the additional evidence which was led in the Appeal Court. The Court held that the judgment and decree was passed after investigating the claim and therefore it was passed on merits. However the Court further held that in their judgment "an ex parte judgment can be held to be not on merits only in cases where a judgment is delivered on the ground of limitation or want of jurisdiction or where the defence is struck off as in the case before the Privy Council. In such cases, the Court declines to examine the merits because the suit is barred by limitation or the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit or the defendant is prevented from defending the suit. It is only in these kind of exceptional cases that it is possible to suggest that the decree is not passed on merits." 56

The following are the cases in which the Courts have held that the judgments were passed on the merits of the case.

In the case of Ephrayim H. Ephrayim v. Turner Morrison & Co. 57, it was held that where no defence is raised and only an adjournment is sought, and the request for adjournment is refused and the judgment is proceeded on the evidence of the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that the judgment is not on the merits of the claim. Therefore S. 13(b) of CPC will not be able to come to the rescue of the defendant.

In the case of Gajanan Sheshadri Pandharpurkar v. Shantabai 58, the Bombay High Court held that the true test for determining whether a decree is passed on the merits of the claim or not is whether the judgment has been give as a penalty for any conduct of the defendant or whether it is based on a consideration of the truth or otherwise of the plaintiff's case. Since in the present case, although the defendant was considered to be ex-parte, the claim of the plaintiff was investigated into, the objection under S. 13(b) was held to be unsustainable.

In the case of Trilochan Choudhury v. Dayanidhi Patra 59, the defendant entered appearance in the foreign Court and filed his written Statement. However, on the appointed day for hearing the defendant's advocate withdrew from the suit for want of instructions and also the defendant did not appear. The defendant was placed exparte. The Court heard the plaintiff on merits and passed the decree in his favour. The Court held that the foreign decree and the judgment was passed on the merits of the claim and was not excepted under S. 13(b) of the CPC.

In the case of Mohammad Abdulla v. P.M. Abdul Rahim 60, the defendant had passed on a letter of consent to the plaintiff that the decree may be passed against him for the suit claim. The Court held that since the defendant agreed to the passing of the decree against him, the judgment could not be said to be not on the merits of the claim.

In the case of (Neyna Moona Kavanna) Muhammad Moideen V. S.K.R.S.K.R. Chinthamani Chettiar 61, the defendant entered appearance. The defendant also filed his written statement. However, when the matter was posted for trial, a joint application was moved wherein it was agreed that the matter be postponed for three months with a view to settlement and that if not settled judgment be entered for plaintiffs as prayed for with costs less Rs. 50 and that the property mortgaged with the plaintiff be sold. Subsequently the defendant did not appear and the matter was also not settled. Therefore the Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the joint application. During execution it was contended that the judgment and decree was not on the merits of the case and therefore was not executable. The court held that since the defendant deliberately chose not to insist on their plea and not to adduce evidence of it, the matter was not in the purview of S. 13(b) of CPC. It was further held that the consent operated as estoppel against the defendant.

In the case of Wazir Sahu v. Munshi Das 62, the Patna High Court held that if one of the issues had not been dealt with, that itself would not justify a finding that the decision was not upon the merits.

In the case of Vithalbhai Shivabhai Patel v. Lalbhai Bhimbhai 63, it was held that where the Court had taken evidence and examined witnesses and after taking all the oral evidence and considering the same together with the documents had decreed the claim, the decision must be treated as given on merits and the fact that the defendant did not appear cannot make it otherwise.

In the case of S. Jayam Sunder Rajaratnam v. K. Muthuswami Kangani,64 , it was held that though the judgment and decree of a foreign court might have been passed ex parte, if it was passed on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the decision must be deemed to have been on the merits.

Proposition

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

A judgment or decree passed by a Foreign Court against an Indian defendant, who has chosen to remain ex-parte, may not be enforceable against him, until unless it can be shown that the said judgment was passed after investigation into, and leading of evidence on the plaintiff's claim.

Footnotes

37. AIR 1916 PC 121.

38. AIR 1927 Mad. 265(FB). See Mallappa Yellappa Bennur v. Raghavendra Shamrao Deshpande, AIR 1938 Bom. 173 at 177, the Court held that although under normal circumstances the court does not go into the merits of the case decided in the foreign court, however, due to S. 13(b) of CPC, the Courts in India have a right to examine the judgment to see whether it has been given on the merits.

39. Ibid. at p. 270.

40. Id.

41. AIR 1946 Mad. 296. However, this decision may be contra to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991)3 SCC 451, where the Court had held that the judgment should be a result of the contest between the parties, however in case the defendant agrees to the passing of the decree then it will not be hit by S. 13(b) of CPC.

42. Ibid. at p. 297.

43. AIR 1993 P&H 92.

44. AIR 1981 Mad. 118.

45. AIR 1991 Cal. 335.

46. AIR 1961 Mad. 385 at . 388.

47. (1991)3 SCC 451.

48. Ibid. at p. 461.

49. AIR 1973 Mad. 141. At p. 145 para 31, the Court held that the burden of proof for showing that the execution/enforceability of the judgment or decree was excepted due to the operation of S. 13 is upon the person resisting the execution.

50. Ibid. at p. 145 para 28.

51. AIR 1946 Mad. 448.

52. AIR 1959 Punj. 306.

53. Lalji Raja & Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, AIR 1974 SC 1764 at. 1768, the Supreme Court held that "It is a well established principle of private international law that if a foreign judgment was obtained by fraud or if the proceedings in which it was obtained were opposed to natural justice, it will not operate as res judicata."

54. AIR 1928 Rangoon 319.

55. AIR 1990 Bom. 170.

56. In the Author’s view this decision by the Bombay High Court may be erroneous since in case a suit is barred by limitation or the foreign Court holds that there is no jurisdiction, then the suit will be dismissed. On dismissal of the suit, there cannot be any decree/judgment which may be sought for execution. The latter part is also erroneous since it limits the scope of S. 13(b) only to those circumstances where the defendant is prevented from defending the case on merits. This proposition will be contra to the other judgments of the other courts which hold that even ex-parte decisions can be held to be on the merits of the case in case the plaintiff’s claim has been investigated into by the Court, although the Defendant has not appeared or defended the claim due to any circumstance.

57. AIR 1930 Bom. 511 at 515.

58. AIR 1939 Bom. 374.

59. AIR 1961 Ori. 158.

60. AIR 1985 Mad. 379 at pp. 382 and 383.

61. AIR 1929 Mad. 469.

62. AIR 1941 Pat. 109 at p. 112.

63. AIR 1942 Bom. 199 at p. 202.

64. AIR 1958 Mad. 203. This decision was followed in the case of M.K. Sivagaminatha Pillai v. Nataraja Pillai, AIR 1961 Mad. 385. Also see B.N. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. Madhappa Chettiar, AIR 1925 Mad. 788 at p. 790, where it was held that unless the judgment is given merely on default and in any case in which, in spite of the default any evidence is taken for the plaintiff, and judgment is given thereon, it may be difficult to say, that it is not a decision on the merits.

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.

This article is part of a series: Click Executability & Enforceability Of Foreign Judgments And Decrees In India: Judicial Trends ~ Part 1 for the previous article.
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
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 (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

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