Consti-I Final
Consti-I Final
UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
PROJECT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I
Dr.RMLNLU BA.LLB(H)
Roll No-177
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to each and every person who has directly
or indirectly helped me through this project. My experience has been fulfilling and rewarding. I
also extend my sincere thanks to Ms Ankita Yadav, Faculty, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National
Law University, Lucknow for giving me the opportunity to work on this topic and carry out my
project work. It is a pleasure to express my sincere gratitude for his continuous support and
guidance which helped me in accomplishing this project successfully.
-Kaumudi Umrao
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The Preamble of the Constitution...
Object and Scope of Constitution.
It is part of our constitution or not
Values and Salient features of the Constitution.
Values.
Salient features...
Federal system in India..
Parliamentary form of Government in India.
Conclusion.
Bibliography..
INTRODUCTION
With the advent of globalization and with India poised as a major international and Global player
in the world economy, it is apposite to consider the law concerning Enforcement of foreign
judgments in India. In law, the enforcement of foreign Judgments is the recognition and
3
enforcement rendered in another ("foreign") Jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized
based on bilateral or multilateral Treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express
international Agreement. The "recognition" of a foreign judgment occurs when the court of one
Country or jurisdiction accepts a judicial decision made by the courts of another "foreign"
country or jurisdiction, and issues a judgment in substantially identical Terms without rehearing
the substance of the original lawsuit. Recognition will be generally denied if the judgment is
substantively incompatible
With basic legal principles in the recognizing country. However, the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 has defined Foreign Court and Foreign Judgments as-
Section 2 of the CPC, 1908
(5) "Foreign Court" means a Court situate outside India and not established or
Continued by the authority of the Central Government.
(6) "Foreign judgment" means the judgment of a foreign Court.
Sections 13 and 14 enact a rule of res judicata in case of foreign judgments. These provisions
embody the principle of private international law that a judgment delivered by a foreign court of
competent jurisdiction can be enforced by an Indian court and will operate as res judicata
between the parties thereto except in the cases mentioned in Section 13
4
Foreign Judgments When Not Binding: Circumstances: Sec. 13
Under Sec. 13 of the Code, a foreign judgment is conclusive and will operate as res judicata between the
parties there to accept in the cases mentioned therein. In other words, a foreign judgment is not
conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated upon, if one of the conditions specified in clauses (a) to
(f) of section 13 is satisfied and it will then be open to a collateral attack . Dicey rightly states:
"A foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon and can not be impeached
for any error either of-
1. Fact or
2. Law
A foreign judgment or decree should be conclusive as to any matter adjudicated by it. The test
for conclusiveness of a foreign judgment or decree is laid down in section 13 of the CPC which
states that a foreign judgment shall be conclusive unless:
The proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
Thus, before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the
foreign judgment or decree passes the seven tests above. If the foreign judgment or decree fails
any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India.
In the leading case of Satya v. Teja Singh, where a husband obtained a decree of divorce against his wife
from an American Court averring that he was domiciled in America. Observing that the husband was not
a bonafide resident or domicile of America, and he had played fraud on a foreign court falsely
representing to it incorrect jurisdictional fact, the Supreme Court held that the decree was without
jurisdiction
Again, in Narsimha Rao v. Venkata Kakshmi, A husband obtained a decree of divorce against his wife B
again from an American High Court on the ground that he was a resident of America. Then he remarried
C. B filed a criminal complaint against A and C for bigamy. A and C filed an application for discharge.
Dismissing the application, the Supreme Court held that the decree of dissolution of Marriage was
5
without jurisdiction in as much as neither the marriage was solemnized nor the parties last resided In
America .It was therefore unenforceable in India.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the Supreme Court stated: " It is the settled proposition of law that a
judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non set in the eyes of the law.
Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every
court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings."
Gurdayal Singh v Rajah of Faridkot :In this case, A filed a suit against B in the court of the Native State of
Faridkot, claiming Rs. 60,000 alleged to have been misappropriated by B, while he was in A's service at
Faridkot. B did not appear at the hearing, and an ex parte decree was passed against him. B was a native
of another Native State Jhind. In 1869, he left Jhind and went to Faridkot to take up service under A. But
in 1874, he left A's service and returned to Jhind. The present suit was filed against him in 1879; when he
neither resided at Faridkot nor was he domiciled there. On these facts, on general principles of
International Law, the Faridkot court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit against B based on a mere
personal claim against him. The decree passed by the Faridkot court in these circumstances was an
absolute nullity. When A sued B in a court in British India, against B on the judgment of the Faridkot
court, the suit was dismissed on the ground that Faridkot court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The mere fact that the embezzlement took place at Faridkot, was not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the
Faridkot court would have had complete jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to pass a decree against
him.
Conclusiveness rule of foreign judgment is slightly different in its operation from the rule of res
judicata. Res judicata is applicable to all matters in contention in a previous suit and included
matters which might and ought to have been ground of attack or defense in the former suit. The
rule of conclusiveness of foreign judgment applies only to matters directly adjudicated upon.
Evidently, therefore, every issue finally heard and decided in a foreign court is not conclusive
between the parties. What is conclusive is the judgment.