Private International Law

Or Conflict of Laws
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Why you require Pvt.int.na.law
 Indian court is called upon to try the question of

succession to the property of a person who died in India leaving property in India and abroad.  Petition of divorce presented by an Indian domiciled in India who had married an English woman in England.  Custody of children in India of Indian parents domiciled abroad.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

2

Why you require Pvt. Int.n.law
 Suits connected with foreign country  Question of succession

 Question of validity of marriage
 Petition of divorce  Custody of children

 Supply of goods
 Torts committed on short visits  Enforceability of foreign judgment - can a foreign

judgment be executable in India.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 3

Name
 Its three different names — conflict of laws, private

international law, and international private law — are generally interchangeable, although none of them is wholly accurate or properly descriptive.  The term conflict of laws is primarily used in jurisdictions of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (United States, England, Canada, Australia, etc.);  private international law is used in France (droit international privé) as well as in Italy, the Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-countries and Greece;  international private law is used in Germany and the other German-speaking countries (internationales Privatrecht)
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

4

Name
 Private International Law is used by Civil Law

countries.  Name is first used by “Story” in 1834.  Used by early authors like Westlake and Foote.  Confusion between law of nations or public international law.  It governs the relation between sovereign states.  Some principles like ‘proper law’ principles are adopted in a private international law case when deciding a case.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 5

Conflict of laws
 Conflict of laws of two countries on the same subject.  The very purpose of private international law is to

avoid conflict of laws.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

6

History
 Back to Greek law – equal application to foreigners

also.  More significant developments can be traced to Roman law.  Roman civil law (jus civile) being inapplicable to noncitizens.  Special tribunals "applied" the "jus gentium."  The jus gentium was a flexible and loosely-defined body of law based on international norms.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 7

History
 Contribution of Islamic law and jurisprudence.  Muslim conquests and maritime explorations.

 Islamic jurists developed elaborate rules for private

international law regarding issues such as contracts and property, family relations and child custody, legal procedure and jurisdiction, religious conversion, and the return of aliens to an enemy country from the Muslim world.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

8

Modern laws
 The modern conflict of laws is generally considered to

have begun in Northern Italy during the late Middle Ages and in particular at trading cities such as Genoa, Piza and Venice.  Maritime law was also a great driver of international legal rules; providing for the enforcement of contracts, the protection of shipwrecked sailors and property, and the maintaining of harbours.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

9

England
 King constituted special courts for foreigners, the

staple courts and pie-powder courts.  Court of admiralty – dealt with trade disputes happened outside the territory even in 14th century.  Recognition of foreign judgments started in the England in 1607.  Robinson v. Bland – 1790 – whether a contract made in France is valid even though it is void in England.  J. Mansfield: the place where the contract is made, not where the action is brought.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 10

Two groups of thought
 1. Conflict of Laws as a part of international law.  2. Domestic law

 Comity of nations
 Jurisdiction of courts  Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

 The choice of law.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

11

Two major areas
 Private international law "sensu stricto" comprising

conflict of laws rules which determine the law of which country (state) is applicable to specific relations.  Private international law "sensu lato" which comprises private international law "sensu stricto" (conflict of laws rules) and material legal norms which have direct extraterritorial character and are imperatively applied (material norms of law crossing the borders of State) usually regulations on real property, consumer law, currency control regulations, insurance and banking regulations.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 12

Application
 The court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction

and, if so, whether it is the appropriate venue given the problem of forum shopping.  The next step is the characterisation of the cause of action into its component legal categories which may sometimes involve an incidental question (also note the distinction between procedural and substantive laws).

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

13

Choice of law
 Each legal category has one or more choice of law rules

to determine which of the competing laws should be applied to each issue.  A key element in this may be the rules on renvoi.  Once it has been decided which laws to apply, those laws must be proved before the forum court and applied to reach a judgment.  The successful party must then enforce the judgment which will first involve the task of securing crossborder recognition of the judgment.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 14

Choice of law
 application of the lex fori or local law.  the court will apply the law of the forum (lex fori) to all procedural

matters (including, self-evidently, the choice of law rules); and  it counts the factors that connect or link the legal issues to the laws of potentially relevant states and applies the laws that have the greatest connection,  e.g. the law of nationality (lex patriae) or domicile (lex domicilii) will define legal status and capacity, the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) will be applied to determine all questions of title, the law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (lex loci actus) will often be the controlling law selected when the matter is substantive, but the proper law has become a more common choice.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 15

Choice of Law
 Lex loci contractus: the law of the place where the contract was made;  Lex loci solutionis: the law of the place where the contract is to be


 


 

performed; Lex loci celebrationis: the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated; Lex loci delicti: place where the tort was committed; Lex loci domicilli: the law of the place where a person is domiciled; Lex patriae: the law of the nationality Lex situs: the law of the place where the property is situated. Lex fori: the law of the forum(internal Law).

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

16

Choice of law
 Which system of law must govern the case?  Warsaw convention – 1929 amended in

 The Hague convention – 1893 - 1955.
 International sale of goods – 1964 - 1980  Lugano Convention – 1988

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

17

Subject matter
Rules relating to jurisdiction of courts 2. Rules of choice of law 3. Rules relating to recognition and judgment of foreign judgments and decrees.
1.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

18

Different jurisdictions
 Law of the place of tort  Place of celebration of marriage

 Movables are subject to the law of the domicile of the

owner for the purpose of succession.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

19

Different theories
 Theory of acquired right:  Dutch jurist Huber and later Dicey and Beale in USA.

 Principle of territoriality
 Enforcement of right rather than foreign law.  Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, (1811).

 No support today.
 No protection of right without the recognition of law.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

20

Local law theory
 Walter Wheeler Cook  The forum recognizes and enforces a local right.

 Total exclusion of all foreign laws.
 If a foreign element is there, it does not necessarily

apply law of the forum.  Social expediency and practical convenience.

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

21

Rule selection or jurisdiction selection
 Forum policy – law of the forum  Local law rules vs. international law

 Jurisdiction selection
 Rule selection

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

22

Factors
 Need of the interstate and international systems  Relevant policies of the forum.

 Policies of the interested states.
 Protection of justified expectations.  The basic policies underlying the particular field of

law.  Certainty, predictability and uniformity of result  Ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 23

Classification of the cause of action
 Allocation of the question raised by the factual

situation to apply a correct legal category.  Law of the forum  Law of citus  Law of marriage  Law of domicile

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

24

Foreign element
 Ogden v. Ogden, 1908  Simonin v.s Mallac

 Consent of marriage under French Law
 Bona vacantia – Re Maldonado’s Estate, 1954 

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

25

Thank you

© KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

26

Private International Law
Or conflict of laws
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Classification or characterization
 The first step in any case where a foreign element

involved,  Determination of jurisdiction is important.  Classification of the cause of action  Objective is to find out the court and correct legal category.  What choice of law to be applied?  Whether the law of the forum?  Law of the domicile?
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 2

Characterization
 As a breach of contract  As a tort

 Reference to which law the court is going to

characterize the factual situation.  Objective is to reach a socially and just result.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

3

Characterization
 Indian court  Inheritance to immovable property in India

 Married woman domiciled in Tibet.
 Polyandrous marriage  2 husband and 3 children

 Valid marriage – no marriage.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

4

Choice of law
 The question of what law applies is a question the

court answers by consulting the law of its own state; that is, it is a question of forum choice-of-law doctrine.  the court proceeds to apply the forum’s substantive or internal law: the tort, contract, or other law that determines the parties’ substantive rights.  The forum’s choice-of-law rules might also direct the application of another state’s law.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

5

Choice of forum
 If foreign law can never apply within the forum state,

then obviously the forum cannot apply foreign choiceof law rules.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

6

Choice
 Capacity to marry: lex domicilli  Formalities and validity: lex celebrationis or lex

contractus or lex situs.  Marriage is void or voidable: lex fori or lex causae  Marriage by proxi

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

7

Traditional approach
 The theory of territoriality.  The traditional jurists are of the opinion that axiom of

territoriality, the principle that “the law of a state prevails throughout its boundaries and, generally speaking, not outside them.”  only the law of the state where an event occurred can attach legal consequences to that event, and choice of law becomes largely a matter of determining the place of occurrence.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

8

Modern policy oriented approach
 Regarding this approach the experts have said that the

fundamental insight of modern theory is that the applicability of a law is a pure question of interpretation.  As most legislation does not specify its territorial scope, it hints at filling the gaps by reference to a law's purpose.  The solutions advanced by the policy-oriented approaches are essentially the same as those offered by the traditionalists,
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 9

Maltese marriage case
 Husband and wife domiciled in malta-time of

marriage acquired French domicil – land in France – succession of law according to law lex loci citus –  Matrimonial rights are according to law of domicile Conflict of classification – Maltese or French?  French court applied the matrimonial law of Malta.  Classification of cause of action will decide every case.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

10

Cases
 Ogden v. Ogden, 1908  Frenchman domiciled in France

 Married an English woman in London without

knowledge of parents  Frenchman below 25  Father take him to France back and got annulled the marriage from French Court – want of parental consent  French law.  Frenchman married another girl in France.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 11

Case
 English women approached High Court of England on

the ground of desertion and adultery.  Petition dismissed on ground of want of jurisdiction  1906 - she married another English man named William Ogden  Ogden filed a divorce petition on the ground that at the time of marriage, she was already married.  The court passed a decree annulling the marriage  The court said the marriage with the Frenchman was valid as the French Decree not recognized by English court. ©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

12

Characterization
 Parental consent is a formality – lex loci celebrationis,

i.e. English Law  Result – the women was married under English law and not married under French Law.  First Stage – assessing factual situation  Second Stage – connecting factor is characterized  Third stage – characterization of proper law is made.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

13

Renvoi

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

14

Renvoi
 French term means – sending back  When a forum court refers the case to anther

jurisdiction many questions arises:  How much of other jurisdiction of law applies?  Does it include choice of law principles?  Does it include only the jurisdiction’s internal law?

 The question whether a forum should

consult the choice of law rules of other jurisdictions is called renvoi.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 15

Renvoi
 Jurisdiction  The court must first decide whether it has the

jurisdiction to hear the case (which will involve addressing the question of whether the plaintiff is attempting to manipulate the judicial system by forum shopping).  Choice of law  The court must analyse the case as pleaded and allocate each component to its appropriate legal classification, each of which will have one or more choice of law rules attached to it.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

16

Renvoi
 Objective is to attain a uniform judicial determinations

irrespective of foreign or domestic forum.  By using the law of the forum more accurate decision.  Applying the chosen law  The court will then apply the choice of law rules.  The system of renvoi, which literally means "send back", is an attempt to prevent forum shopping.  The next step is to see whether there is a reference solely to the relevant substantive provisions, or to the state's system of law as a whole which would include its choice of law rules. ©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 17

Renvoi
 Where the law of the forum provides that a juridical

event shall be governed by a certain foreign law, and that foreign law in turn remits it to the law of the forum to determine by its law, the situation arises which has been termed as renvoi.  Choice of law  the forum court might in the process decide what it means to apply the law of another state.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

18

Law
 what is meant by ‘law’ when a reference is made to  foreign law; for example, does a reference to ‘Indian

law’ mean Indian internal law, or the whole of Indian law, including its conflict of laws rules?  The word ‘law’ is ambiguous and a number of approaches have been suggested in this regard.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

19

Renvoi: jurists opinion
 Professor Schreiber: “When the Conflict of

Laws rule of the forum refers a jural matter to a foreign law for decision, is the reference to the corresponding rule of the Conflict of Laws of that foreign law, or is the reference to the purely internal rules of law of the foreign system; i.e., to the totality of the foreign law minus its Conflict-of-Laws rules.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 20

Single renvoi
 A single renvoi forum always refers to the other law's

choice of law rules.  If those rules would send the issue back to the forum court, the forum court will accept the first remission and applies its own laws.  But, if both sets of laws operate with either no renvoi system or single renvoi systems, forum shopping will be a potential problem.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

21

Single renvoi
 when the court of the forum has a choice to apply the

foreign choice of law rules, accept the remission to its law by the foreign law and apply the law which it would have applied had the case been entirely domestic to the forum, or in the case of transmission, the domestic law of the third country.  This requires proof of the choice of law rules of the foreign country but not of the foreign rules about renvoi.  This is single renvoi.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 22

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

23

Single renvoi
 A single renvoi forum always refers to the other law's

choice of law rules.  If those rules would send the issue back to the forum court, the forum court will accept the first remission and applies its own laws.  But, if both sets of laws operate with either no renvoi system or single renvoi systems, forum shopping will be a potential problem.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

24

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

25

Single renvoi
 If a Judge in country A is referred by his own rule of

the choice of a law to the ‘law’ of the country B, but the rule of the choice of law in B refers such a case to the ‘law’ of A, then the Judge in A must apply the internal law of his own country.  Remission to its own law.  Forgo’s case  Bavarian national died intestate in France  Whether his movable properties could be distributed according to Bavarian law or French law?
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 26

Single renvoi
 when the court of the forum has a choice to apply the

foreign choice of law rules, accept the remission to its law by the foreign law and apply the law which it would have applied had the case been entirely domestic to the forum, or in the case of transmission, the domestic law of the third country.  This requires proof of the choice of law rules of the foreign country but not of the foreign rules about renvoi.  This is single renvoi or remission.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 27

Lex Fori

Or Single Renvoi
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 28

Single renvoi

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

29

Transmission
 If 3 countries are involved.  Indian national - A

 Domiciled in the US - B
 Dies intestate in UK leaving movables – C  English law – law of the domicile – US law

 The US private international law refer the case to law

of nationality - Indian law.  Reference from B to C is known as transmission.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

30

Double renvoi or foreign court theory
 In this scenario, the forum court considers that it is

sitting as the foreign court and will decide the matter in exactly the same way that the foreign court would.  In this system, there can never be more than two remissions, e.g. English forum refers to French law (a single renvoi system) so English law is applied (1st remission) and France accepts the remission (2nd and final).  At present, only English law uses this approach.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

31

Double or multiple renvoi
 Double or Multiple renvoi is when the court of the

forum may resolve the issue in the same manner as a court of the legal system selected by its choice of law rules might resolve it had the foreign court exercised jurisdiction in the same case on the same facts.  This method requires proof not only of the choice of law rules of the foreign country but also the foreign rules about renvoi.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

32

Application of renvoi
 Because the doctrine is considered difficult and its

results are sometimes unpredictable, its application has generally been limited to:  the validity of wills and intestate succession (the validity of transfers of real property); and  retrospective legitimation by the marriage of the natural parents (validity of divorce decrees).  Although there are indications in some states that it might also apply to two issues in family law, namely the capacity to marry and the formal validity of marriage.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 33

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

34

Double or multiple renvoi
 Double or Multiple renvoi is when the court of the

forum may resolve the issue in the same manner as a court of the legal system selected by its choice of law rules might resolve it had the foreign court exercised jurisdiction in the same case on the same facts.  This method requires proof not only of the choice of law rules of the foreign country but also the foreign rules about renvoi.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

35

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

36

English citizen dies intestate domiciled in Italy – English conflicts of law refers it to law of domicile – ie. Law of Italy –Italian conflicts of law refers it back to the national law-English law

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

37

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

38

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

39

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

40

Application of renvoi
 Because the doctrine is considered difficult and its

results are sometimes unpredictable, its application has generally been limited to:  the validity of wills and intestate succession (the validity of transfers of real property); and  retrospective legitimation by the marriage of the natural parents (validity of divorce decrees).  Although there are indications in some states that it might also apply to two issues in family law, namely the capacity to marry and the formal validity of marriage.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 41

Applicability
 formal and intrinsic validity of wills  cases of intestate succession

 legitimation by subsequent marriage.
 formal validity of marriage  Capacity to marry.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

42

Limitations
 Does not ensure uniform results.  One of the country should reject the renvoi then only

it will work properly.  Renvoi works only in commonwealth countries.  If the foreign country rule is unacceptable – no application of renvoi.  The judge referring the case must look into the foreign law.  It depends on whether the single renvoi is recognised by the foreign country.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 43

Re O’ Keefe
 Born in Calcutta – India  Settled in Naples, Italy

 British nationality
 Father – domiciled in Ireland at the time of her berth-

lived and died in Calcutta

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

44

Collier vs. Rivaz, 1841
 British subject  Domiciled in Belgium at the time of death  Executed various instruments according to Belgian law.

 Some of the documents are not in accordance with Belgian law.
 The testator never acquired a domicile in Belgium – no

authorization.  The question was whether the instruments could be probate in England.  Held: the formal validity of a will cannot be denied if it satisfies either the internal law or the private international law.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

45

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

46

cases
 In Re Ross, 1930  Validity of a will – intestate succession to movables –

law of the foreign country.  Immovable – private internationals of the country where the immovable's are situated.  Movables – law of the situs where the title of the movables has been acquired.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

47

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

48

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

49

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

50

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

51

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

52

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

53

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

54

Thank you

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

55

Private International Law
Or conflict of laws
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

1

Double Renvoi or foreign court theory
 Sir Herbert Jenner formulated the foreign court theory.  The court sitting here decides from the persons skilled

in that law, and decides as it would if sitting in Belgium.  Collier v. Revaz (1841)

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

2

Double renvoi or foreign court theory
 In this scenario, the forum court considers that it is

sitting as the foreign court and will decide the matter in exactly the same way that the foreign court would.  In this system, there can never be more than two remissions, e.g. English forum refers to French law (a single renvoi system) so English law is applied (1st remission) and France accepts the remission (2nd and final).  At present, only English law uses this approach.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

3

Double or multiple renvoi
 Double or Multiple renvoi is when the court of the

forum may resolve the issue in the same manner as a court of the legal system selected by its choice of law rules might resolve it had the foreign court exercised jurisdiction in the same case on the same facts.  This method requires proof not only of the choice of law rules of the foreign country but also the foreign rules about renvoi.  Illustration

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

4

Lex Fori

Or Single Renvoi
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009 5

Double or multiple renvoi
 Double or Multiple renvoi is when the court of the

forum may resolve the issue in the same manner as a court of the legal system selected by its choice of law rules might resolve it had the foreign court exercised jurisdiction in the same case on the same facts.  This method requires proof not only of the choice of law rules of the foreign country but also the foreign rules about renvoi.  Illustration

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

6

Application of renvoi
 the doctrine is considered difficult and its results are

sometimes unpredictable, its application has generally been limited to:  the validity of wills and intestate succession (the validity of transfers of real property); and  retrospective legitimation by the marriage of the natural parents (validity of divorce decrees).  Although there are indications in some states that it might also apply to two issues in family law, namely the capacity to marry and the formal validity of marriage.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009 7

Applicability
 formal and intrinsic validity of wills  cases of intestate succession

 legitimation by subsequent marriage.
 formal validity of marriage  Capacity to marry.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

8

Limitations
 Does not ensure uniform results.  One of the country should reject the renvoi then only

it will work properly.  Renvoi works only in commonwealth countries.  If the foreign country rule is unacceptable – no application of renvoi.  The judge referring the case must look into the foreign law.  It depends on whether the single renvoi is recognised by the foreign country.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009 9

 The foreign court theory suffers from ambiguity.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

10

Re O’ Keefe
 Born in Calcutta – India  Settled in Naples, Italy

 British nationality
 Father – domiciled in Ireland at the time of her berth-

lived and died in Calcutta

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

11

Collirt vs. Rivaz, 1841
 British subject  Domiciled in Belgium at the time of death  Executed various instruments according to Belgian law.

 Some of the documents are not in accordance with Belgian law.
 The testator never acquired a domicile in Belgium – no

authorization.  The question was whether the instruments could be probate in England.  Held: the formal validity of a will cannot be denied if it satisfies either the internal law or the private international law.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

12

cases
 In Re Ross, 1930  Validity of a will – intestate succession to movables –

law of the foreign country.  Immovable – private internationals of the country where the immovable's are situated.  Movables – law of the situs where the title of the movables has been acquired.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

13

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

14

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

15

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

16

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

17

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

18

Thank you

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2009

19

Foreign Law Element
Application and Exclusion
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Deciding case
 Question of fact – to be proved  Question of law – not required to be proved

 Foreign element cases – same questions arises.
 Private international law differs.  Foreign element – Courts apply foreign law – exclude

foreign law.  Foreign law – question of law or question of fact?

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

2

Application of foreign law
 Italy - Same way as that of the internal law – duty of

the court to know foreign law.  Germany - question of law - Secondary nature –not in the same way as that of internal law – content of the foreign law should be established.  French Law - Question of Fact – it is the duty of the court to ascertain it ex officio.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

3

Practices
 Russia – East Europe - – simple fact – parties to prove-

Duty of the court to found objective truth on the interest of the society.  The court is obliged to strive to establish ex officio the substance of the foreign rules of law.  All common law countries including India – taken it as a question of fact.  Burden of proof is with the parties.  By documentary evidence, oral, expert witnesses.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 4

Other countries
 Common-law countries, Spain, Portugal, India and

some Latin American Countries take the view that the question of foreign law is a question of fact in the same manner as any other question of fact.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

5

Proof of foreign law
 England: the foreign law must be pleaded and proved

as a fact, by expert evidence  In the absence of foreign law the court will apply English law.  Bremer v. Freeman, (1857) PC 306  Concha v. Murrieta, 40 Ch D 543  ‘foreign law is to be ascertained by the evidence of experts skilled in such a law.’  Lawyers or academic Professors
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 6

Experts
 Evidence of roman Catholic Bishop was accepted to

prove the matrimonial law in Rome.  Bank Director – any commercial matter.  Diplomats –  Notary –  Non Lawyers

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

7

Law in other countries
 S.4(1) of the English Civil Evidence Act 1972 permits

expert evidence on foreign law of persons suitably qualified to do so on account of their knowledge or experience.  Canada: foreign statutes and judicial proceedings are admitted according to Article 2809 of the Civil Code in the Province of Quebec.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

8

India
 Indian evidence Act, 1872.  S.38 of the Act provides that any official publication of

a foreign country containing its laws or law reports can be admitted in evidence.  S.45 – any person specially skilled can give expert evidence on a subject.  S.57 – Indian courts will take judicial notice of certain laws.  S.78 – includes ‘public documents’ – legislative acts of any country.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 9

India
 57(2) – all public Acts passed by the Parliament of the

UK to be judicially noticed…  4. the course of proceedings of Parliament of the UK…  S.84 – the court may presume the geniuses of every such record.  Appropriate books or documents of reference.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

10

India
 Bombay High Court taken the view that judgment of the


   

highest court of the foreign country is best evidence as to the law of that country. Sugan chand Bhinkimchand v. Mangibai Gulabchand, 1942 Bomb. 185. Indian law the burden of proof is on the party setting the plea of foreign law. Palaniappa Chetty v. Nagappa chettiar, 1930 Mad. 146. Ceylon Civil Procedure Code – expert opinion – the court itself interpret the provisions of foreign law. Under Indian law, foreign law may be proved by expert evidence under S.45KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 Evidence Act. ©KDR/IIT of Indian

11

Application of foreign law
 Technip SA v. SMS Holding (Pvt) Ltd. 2005, 5 SCC 465. - ‘it

is for the court to resolve the conflict by looking at the admitted text of the French law and the material on record to decide the proper application of the provisions.  SEBI held that French law applied to the takeover of Coflexip and consequently SEAMEC by Technip for the purpose of determining when such takeover was effected. It found that the Technip had obtained control of Coflexip in July 2001 and had violated Regulations 10 and 12 of the Regulations thereby acquiring 58.24% of the shares/voting rights and control in SEAMEC in July 2001 without making any public offer.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 12

Exclusion of Foreign law
 It is the duty of the party pleading foreign law is to

prove what the foreign law is.  If he fails to do the court will apply lex fori.  Against public policy or Ordre Public  Foreign law is penal in nature  Foreign law revenue in nature

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

13

English court
 William and Humbert Ltd. v. W. & H Trade Marks

(Jersey) Ltd. (Dry Sack Sherry Trade mark case, (1085) 3 WLR 501.  Class I – English courts will not recognize foreign confiscatory laws which discriminates on the grounds of race, religion or the like.  Grave infringement to human right laws  Class II – foreign laws confiscating property situated in a foreign country if they are penal in nature.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 14

Exclusion of foreign law
 If the system of law offends the domestic law notions

of public welfare by applying the doctrine of ordre public.  English courts won’t enforce foreign laws if it would be inconsistent with the fundamental public policy of English law.  Indian courts also will not assist in the enforcement of foreign penal and revenue laws: - Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

15

Exclusion of foreign law
 US – penal laws cannot be executed.  Pecuniary penalties for any violations of statutes for

the protection of revenue or municipal laws.  Recognised in the Hague Convention on the Recognition and enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1971.  Contracting states have agreed to recognise and enforce judgments of each other’s courts, but does not apply to any payment of customs duty, tax or penalty.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 16

Exclusion
 Government of India v. Taylor, [1955] AC 491.  HL held that revenue law cannot be enforced in UK.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

17

India
 A. 261 of the Indian constitution provides that full

faith and credit will be given throughout India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and the states, and final judgments of civil courts throughout India can be executed anywhere in India.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

18

Public policy
 Fundamental concern to the state and society at large.  No definite definition

 Justice and morality are subjective and relative notions
 Vary from time to time and society to society  Violative of natural justice will not be enforced or

given effect to.  Foreign contacts violative of English ideas of morality

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

19

Public policy
 It should be narrowly construed.  J. Cardozo: the courts are not free to refuse to enforce a

foreign right at the pleasure of the judges, to suit the individual notion of expediency or fairness.  They do not close their doors unless help would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conceptions of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.  Loucks v. Standard Oil Co 224 NY 99.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 20

Public policy
 Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways, (2002) AC

883.  ‘Power to disregard a provision of foreign law must be exercised exceptionally and with the greatest circumspection.’  Foreign Awards (Recognition And Enforcement) Act 1961 refuse to enforce foreign awards violates Indian public policy, justice or morality.  Shahnaz v. Rizwan, (1965) 1 Q.B. 390. – polygamous marriage - domiciled Indian Muslims – wife entitled to entire dower on dissolution of marriage-contract can be enforceable in India.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

21

Summary
 The case concerned a polygamous marriage governed by Muslim law. The couple hailed from India. The issue was whether the wife could ask the Court to enforce a term of the marriage contract which stipulated the payment by the husband to the wife of a deferred Mahr in the event of his divorcing her. This

clause was enforceable under Muslim law. The Court treated this provision purely as a contractual term. The fact that the contractual term owed its existence to the couple’s polygamous marriage was not treated as a bar to enforcement. The Court did not have jurisdiction to make post-divorce financial arrangements at the time of the decision, given the polygamous nature of the marriage. This followed from its jurisprudence on polygamy. It was important not to classify the Mahr as some form of ancillary relief (say, in today’s practice, the provision of a lump sum, which seems to be the Mahr’s approximate function) although the case itself preceded the development of lump sum awards by English courts. This was because the courts had established that it was contrary to public policy to enforce rights under polygamous unions.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 22

Public policy
 Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages) Act

1972 recognizes marriages in England.  Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separation Act, 1972.  Court refuse to enforce the Foreign Awards Act 1961, on the ground that the award violated Indian public policy.  Renusagar Power Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co. AIR 1994, SC 860.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 23

Other countries – public policy
 If money lent in a country where gambling was legal, it

can be recovered in an English court – Saxby v. Fulton [1909] 2 KB 208.  Foreign law which offends human rights would not be accepted in England.  Law which is disregard of international law will not be recognised.  Marriage by proxy – recognised in Argentina – lex loci celebrationis – not opposed to English public policy.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 24

India
 Foreign takeover regulations: French subsidiary-

Indian company – French law will apply. - Technip SA

v. SMS Holding (Pvt) Ltd.
 Disability from succession: - no person can benefit

from a crime committed by him.  foreign revenue laws cannot be enforced in India.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

25

Cases
 Chenni v. Chenni, (1965)  Marriage between uncle and niece

 Contrary to public policy
 Prejudicial to international relations.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

26

Foreign revenue laws
Income Tax, custom duty, stamp duty, municipal contribution, capital gains tax etc. Government of India v. Taylor, (1955) A.C. 491 Tax gathering is not a matter of contract but of authority and administration as between the state and those within its jurisdiction.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

27

Foreign Penal Laws
 Criminal law  Confiscatory law was considered as penal law

 Money claims are not penal, remedial in nature and

can be enforced  Huntington v. Attrill, (1893) AC 150.  It is the law of the forum to decide whether the law is penal or remedial in nature.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

28

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

29

Domicile
 In personal matters, lex patrie is the governing law in

the civil law countries.  Lex domicilli is the governing law in common law countries.  Absurd results.  Domicile and citizenship –  Person’s civil rights – political status.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

30

Domicile
 Root of the concept is the permanent home.  Intend to make that place his permanent home is

important.  If he is never stayed in that place – not domiciled.  Dual citizenship but only one domicile.  Domicile attaches to a place or a country or a part of a country.  Place of birth - If the person is born in India – Indian personal law.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 31

Domicile
 If a suit is filed in Italian court for the succession to the

property of an Indian who died domiciled in Italy.  Italian Private International Law – Italian court decides the case on the basis of nationality of the deceased.  If the suit is filed in the Indian court, the Indian court will decide the case on the basis of Italian law – the law of domicile of the deceased.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

32

Cases
 Re Samara  Re O’Keefe.

 Protagonist of nationality : P.S. Mansini – speech

delivered in the University of Turin – 1851.  Marriage in India – domicile – Technip SA v. SMS Holding (p) Ltd (2005) 5 SCC 465.  There can be only one domicile in India – Pradeep Jain v. UOI, AIR 1984 SC 1420.  Indian Succession Act, 1925.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 33

Indian Succession Act, 1925.
 5. Law regulating succession to deceased person's

immoveable and moveable property, respectively. -(1) Succession to the immoveable property in 3*[India] of a person deceased shall be regulated by the law of 3*[India], wherever such person may have had his domicile at the time of his death.  (2) Succession to the moveable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which such person had his domicile at the time of his death.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

34

Illustration
 A, having his domicile in 1*[India], dies in France,

leaving moveable property in France, moveable property in England, and property, both moveable and immoveable, in 1*[India].  The succession to the whole is regulated by the law of 1*[India].

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

35

Illustration
 A, an Englishman, having his domicile in France, dies

in 1*[India], and leaves property, both moveable and immoveable, in 1*[India].  The succession to the moveable property is regulated by the rules which govern, in France, the succession to the moveable property of an Englishman dying domiciled in France, and the succession to the immoveable property is regulated by the law of 1*[India].

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

36

Indian Succession Act
 6. One domicile only affects succession to

moveables..-A person can have only one domicile for the purpose of the succession to his moveable property.  Legitimate child - At the time of the birth of A, his father was domiciled in England. A's domicile of origin is in England, whatever may be the country in which he was born.  Illegitimate - The domicile of origin of an illegitimate child is in the country in which, at the time of his birth, his mother was domiciled.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 37

Indian Succession Act
 9. Continuance of domicile of origin.-The

domicile of origin prevails until a new domicile has been acquired.  10. A man acquires a new domicile by taking up his  fixed habitation in a country which is not that of his domicile of origin.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

38

India
 Movables – his domicile  Immovable's – law of India

 Indian Succession Act, 1925 – S.6 – 18
 Constitution of India – Article 5  Whose parents are born in India.

 Who had been ordinarily resident in India for at least 5

years before the commencement of the constitution.  Indian courts uses the Indian Succession Act for the interpretation of the articles of Constitution.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 39

Domicile of origin
 Common law – persons at birth.  Father- legitimate

 Mother – illegitimate
 Domicile of origin remains the same until obtains a

domicile of choice.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

40

India
 Kedar pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah, AIR 1966 SC 160.  Child – domicile of father – legitimate – Mother – illegitimate.  DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 SC 334.

 Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36 – intention to

reside for a long period.  25 years residence in India did not suffice – Jopp v. Wood – intention to return to Scotland.  Yogesh Bharadwaj v. State of UP, AIR 1991 SC 356  The domicile of origin can be transmitted through several generations on member of which has ever resided for any length f time in the country of the domicile of origin.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

41

Wife
 Common law - Domicile of husband.  Changed by law in 1973 in England

 India - Follows common law
 Widow – remains of her late husband unless she

changes it.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

42

Domicile of choice
 Actual residence in pace with an intention to reside

permanently or indefinitely in that place.  Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Bullock, [1976] 1 WLR 1178.  Intention to make a place his permanent home.  Length of residence is only a factor.  Married a local woman or his wife and children with him.  Established a business in a place  Matrimonial in a place is an important factor.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 43

India
 Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, AIR 1974 SC

1764.  Thomas Edmund Teighmouth Shore v. Hugh Carcy Morgan (1935) ILR 62 Cal 869. – missionary who live 60 years in India and died in India – acquired domicile of choice in India.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

44

Thank you

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

45

Domicile
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Domicile
 In personal matters, lex patrie is the governing law in

the civil law countries.  Lex domicilli is the governing law in common law countries.  Absurd results.  Domicile and citizenship –  Person’s civil rights – political status.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

2

Domicile
 Root of the concept is the permanent home.  Intend to make that place his permanent home is

important.  If he is never stayed in that place – not domiciled.  Dual citizenship but only one domicile.  Domicile attaches to a place or a country or a part of a country.  Place of birth - If the person is born in India – Indian personal law.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 3

Domicile
 If a suit is filed in Italian court for the succession to the

property of an Indian who died domiciled in Italy.  Italian Private International Law – Italian court decides the case on the basis of nationality of the deceased.  If the suit is filed in the Indian court, the Indian court will decide the case on the basis of Italian law – the law of domicile of the deceased.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

4

Cases
 Re Samara  Re O’Keefe.

 Protagonist of nationality : P.S. Mansini – speech

delivered in the University of Turin – 1851.  Marriage in India – domicile – Technip SA v. SMS Holding (p) Ltd (2005) 5 SCC 465.  There can be only one domicile in India – Pradeep Jain v. UOI, AIR 1984 SC 1420.  Indian Succession Act, 1925.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 5

Indian Succession Act, 1925.
 5. Law regulating succession to deceased person's

immoveable and moveable property, respectively. -(1) Succession to the immoveable property in 3*[India] of a person deceased shall be regulated by the law of [India], wherever such person may have had his domicile at the time of his death.  (2) Succession to the movable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which such person had his domicile at the time of his death.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

6

Illustration
 A, having his domicile in 1*[India], dies in France,

leaving movable property in France, moveable property in England, and property, both moveable and immoveable, in [India].  The succession to the whole is regulated by the law of 1*[India].

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

7

Illustration
 A, an Englishman, having his domicile in France, dies

in 1*[India], and leaves property, both moveable and immoveable, in 1*[India].  The succession to the movable property is regulated by the rules which govern, in France  succession to the immoveable property is regulated by the law of 1*[India].

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

8

Indian Succession Act
 6. One domicile only affects succession to

movables..-A person can have only one domicile for the purpose of the succession to his moveable property.  Legitimate child - At the time of the birth of A, his father was domiciled in England. A's domicile of origin is in England, whatever may be the country in which he was born.  Illegitimate - The domicile of origin of an illegitimate child is in the country in which, at the time of his birth, his mother was domiciled.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 9

Succession
 7. Domicile of origin of person of legitimate

birth.- The domicile of origin of every person of legitimate birth is in the country in which at the time of his birth his father was domiciled; or, if he is a posthumous child, in the country in which his father was domiciled at the time of the father's death.  Illustration  At the time of the birth of A, his father was domiciled in England. A's domicile of origin is in England, whatever may be the country in which he was born.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 10

Succession
 8. Domicile of origin of illegitimate child.- The

domicile of origin of an illegitimate child is in the country in which, at the time of his birth, his mother was domiciled.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

11

Indian Succession Act
 9. Continuance of domicile of origin.-The

domicile of origin prevails until a new domicile has been acquired.  10. A man acquires a new domicile by taking up his  fixed habitation in a country which is not that of his domicile of origin.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

12

Succession
 10. Acquisition of new domicile.- A man acquires a

new domicile by taking up his fixed habitation in a country which is not that of his domicile of origin.  Explanation.- A man is not to be deemed to have taken up his fixed habitation in India merely by reason of his residing there in the civil, military, naval or air force service of Government, or in the exercise of any profession or calling.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

13

Succession
 11. Special mode of acquiring domicile in India.-

Any person may acquire a domicile in India by making and depositing in some office in India, appointed in this behalf by the State Government, a declaration in writing under his hand of his desire to acquire such domicile; provided that he has been resident in India for one year immediately preceding the time of his making such declaration.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

14

India
 Movables – his domicile  Immovable's – law of India

 Indian Succession Act, 1925 – S.6 – 18
 Whose parents are born in India.  Indian courts uses the Indian Succession Act for the

interpretation of the articles of Constitution.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

15

Domicile of origin
 Common law – persons at birth.  Father- legitimate

 Mother – illegitimate
 Domicile of origin remains the same until obtains a

domicile of choice.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

16

India
 Kedar pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah, AIR 1966 SC 160.  Child – domicile of father – legitimate – Mother –    

illegitimate. DP Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 SC 334. Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36 – intention to reside for a long period. Yogesh Bharadwaj v. State of UP, AIR 1991 SC 356 The domicile of origin can be transmitted through several generations on member of which has ever resided for any length f time in the country of the domicile of origin.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 17

9/14/2010

Wife
 Common law - Domicile of husband.  Changed by law in 1973 in England

 India - Follows husband’s
 Widow – remains of her late husband unless she

changes it.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

18

India
 Section 15 : Domicile Acquired by woman on marriage

- By marriage a woman acquired the domicile of her husband, if she had not the same domicile before.  Section 16: Wife's domicile during marriage - A wife's domicile during her marriage follows the domicile of her husband.  Exception - The wife's domicile no longer follows that of her husband if they are separated by the sentence of a competent Court, or if the husband is undergoing a sentence of transportation.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 19

Domicile of choice
 Actual residence in pace with an intention to reside

permanently or indefinitely in that place.  Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Bullock, [1976] 1 WLR 1178.  Intention to make a place his permanent home.  Length of residence is only a factor.  Married a local woman or his wife and children with him.  Established a business in a place  Matrimonial in a place is an important factor.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 20

India
 Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi, AIR 1974 SC

1764.  Thomas Edmund Teighmouth Shore v. Hugh Carcy Morgan (1935) ILR 62 Cal 869. – missionary who live 60 years in India and died in India – acquired domicile of choice in India.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

21

Indian SC
 Domicile is a mixed question of law and fact and there is

perhaps no chapter in the law that has from such extensive discussion received less satisfactory settlement.  There is no doubt attributable to the nature of the subject, including as it does, inquiry into tie animus of persons who have either died without leaving any clear record of their intentions,  but allowing them to be collected by inference from acts often equivocal; or who, being alive and interested, have a natural tendency to give their bygone feelings a tone and colour suggested by their present inclinations. See Bell v. Kennedy (1868) L.R. 1 Se & Div. 30",
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 22

Cheshire
 One has to consider the tastes, habits, conduct,

actions, ambitions, health, hopes and projects of a person because they are all considered to be keys to his intention to make a permanent home in a place  See the Speech of Lord Atkinson in Winens v. A.G. 1904 A.C. 287.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

23

General rule
 First, no person can be without a domicile. It is well

established that everyone must have a domicile.  A person cannot choose to be without a domicile, even though he can choose to change his domicile.  Every independent person must have a domicile, either of origin or of choice.  Secondly, no person can at the same time for the same purpose have more than one domicile.  Thirdly, an existing domicile is presumed to continue until it is proved that a new domicile has been acquired. 9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 24

Domicil
 The burden of proving a change of domicile rests with

the person asserting such a change.  Fourthly, the courts in a specific country will apply local law in determining a person's domicile.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

25

Nationality and domicile
 Nationality represents a person’s political status  Domicil represents his civil status

 Nationality yield a predictable law
 Domicile yields an appropriate but frequently an

unpredictable law.  Habitual residence or ordinary residence  Physical presence with some degree of continuity.  R v. Barnet London Borough Council, ex p shah, 1983.  Settled for his ordinary purposes.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 26

O’Keefe case
 British national  Lived in Naples for 37 years – domicile - Italy

 Died in Naples
 Domicile of origin was Eire  Succession of movable property in England

 There was no law relating to succession – applied the

law of Eire – domicile of origin

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

27

1951 Hague conference
 In any suit, if there is any conflict between the laws of

two countries,  One to nationality and on to domicile  1. Then the court would apply the domestic law of the domicile of the person concerned.  2. if there is a conflict between the laws of two countries both of which adhere to principle of domicile, then the domestic law of the country of the domicile of the person concerned would apply.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 28

Hague principles
 3. if there is a conflict between two countries following

the principle of nationality then the law of the nationality of the person concerned would apply.  1960 – Hague conference – which the deceased had closest contact.  Accepted in 1960 Convention on guardianship and  1964 convention on Adoption  Intention to live permanently and indefinitely.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

29

Indian and English law
 No person be without a domicile – Udny v. Udny, 1869.  No person can have simultaneously two domiciles

 Domicile denoted the connection between a person

and a territorial system of law.  The presumption is always in favour of continuance of an existing system of law.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

30

Domicile of origin
 Acquired by operation of law  Legitimate son-father

 Illegitimate – mother
 Married – Matrimonial Proceedings Act, 1973  Sankaran Govindan Case

 Re O’ Keefe

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

31

Domicile of choice
 Acquisition of a fresh domicile are residence and

intention.  Residence in the country of domicile of choice.  Intention to live permanently.  Physical presence in that country as an inhabitant of it.  Intention can be inferred

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

32

India
 In India, a person's domicile of origin prevails until he

acquires a new domicile.  If a person is not insane, on reaching eighteen years of age he may acquire a domicile of choice in a country by fulfilling two conditions: residence in the country concerned and intention to live there permanently.  Section 10 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 provides that a person acquires a new domicile by taking up his fixed habitation in a country which is not his domicile of origin.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 33

Choice
 Jopp v. Wood, (1865) – it was held that a residence of

25 years in India did not suffice to give an Indian domicil  His intention was to return to Scotland, his birth place.  If there is more than one residence – chief residence – Plummer v. IRC, (1988) 1 All ER 97.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

34

India
 It was held by the Supreme Court of India in Central

Bank of India v Ram Narayan, 1955 SC 36.  even though the defendant had the intention to move to India, he was still domiciled in Pakistan before he actually come to India.  The period of residence need not be long, and brief residence will not necessarily negative the possibility of acquiring a domicile.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

35

India
 Michael Anthony Rodrigues v. State of Bombay, 1956.

Bom. 729.  1918 – Goan nationality came to Bombay in 1927.  Tailoring business – 40 years.  Michael never visited Goa.  Joined Royal Indian Armed Forces in 1946  He acquired the domicile of choice in Bombay and abandoned the Goan domicile or origin.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

36

Intention
 The required intention is to reside in a country

permanently or for an unlimited time.  The intention must be fixed but not fickle, and must also be directed towards one particular country.  A person's intention can be gathered from all the events and circumstances of his life.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

37

Intention
 Kedar Pande v Narayan Bikram Shah 1966 SC 160.  Whether Shah domiciled in India in 1949

 Father – Nepal
 Born in Banaras – educated in India  Mansions built by his father in 1938

 1949 – Indian passport issued
 Partition suit in 1982  Contested 1957 elections to Ram Nagar Grama

Panchayat – acquired the domicile of India
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 38

Employment
 The intention to reside permanently or for an

unlimited time in a country must be made voluntarily.  A person is not deemed to have taken up his fixed habitation in India merely because of residing there in the civil, military, naval or air force service or in the exercise of any profession or calling.  Explanation to Section 10 of the Indian Succession Act 1925.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

39

Abandoning
 Where a person stops residing in the country of the

domicile of choice and has no intention to reside there indefinitely, he abandons his domicile of choice.  Mere intention to abandon, or mere residence in another country, will not suffice.  The concept of revival of domicile of origin does not apply in India since a person's domicile continues until he acquires another one or his former domicile resumes.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

40

Jurisdiction of Courts

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

41

Who can file suits?
 England - Subjects as well as foreigners, and body

corporate in England or outside?  Enemy aliens – cannot file suit  A foreigner can file a suit in India – Nizamuddin v Husseini AIR 1960 MP 212.  A Pakistani can file a suit once the war is over – Gyasuddin v Allah Tala Wakf Mausuma AIR 1986 All. 39.  An enemy alien permitted by the government to stay in India can file a suit.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 42

Immunity
 Sovereigns  Theory of absolute immunity –

 The Cristina, [1938] AC 485 – damages cannot be

recovered from a foreign sovereign.  Governmental corporations are also immune.  Modern theory – Restricted immunity  Acta jure imperri – acts of a sovereign state  Acta jure gestionis – acts of a commercial nature.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

43

Jurisdiction
 Nationality – civil law countries  Domicile – common law countries

 Against whom an action can be filed
 Who can file an action.  What type of action may be filed.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

44

Actions against whom?
 Actions inter partes – action in personam.  Payment of damages, breach of contract, tort, action

for recovery of debt.  If the defendant is present within the jurisdiction.  When the court assumes jurisdiction against an absentee defendant.  When the defendant submits to the jurisdiction.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

45

Civil Procedure Code 1907
 S.15 - Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the

lowest grade competent to try it.  16. Suits shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.  Suit can be filed either in the court within whose jurisdiction the property situated or the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

46

Different jurisdictions
 17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.

Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Court, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

47

CPC
 18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of

jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain. Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may,  if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property,  and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

48

CPC
 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or

movables.  Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides,  or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court,  the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 49

S.20
 Other suits to be instituted where defendants

reside or cause of action arises.  the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

50

S.83
 Alien - Every person residing in a foreign country,  the Government of any country which is at war with

India and carrying on business in that country without a licence in that behalf granted by the Central Government,  shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be an alien enemy residing in a foreign country.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

51

S.84 foreign state – Immunity
 A foreign State may sue in any competent Court:

Provided that the object of the suit is to enforce a private right vested in the Ruler of such State or in any officer of such State in his public capacity.

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

52

S.86
 86. Suits against foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and

Envoys. No foreign State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a Secretary to that Government:  Provided that a person may, as a tenant of immovable property sue without such consent as aforesaid 2[a foreign State] from whom he holds or claims to hold the property.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 53

Immunity
 No foreign state head or ambassadors or high

commissioners or diplomatic personnel can be arrested under the CPC.  Immunity did not extend to insolvency proceedings.  It does not applicable to probate proceedings.  Immunity extends to trading activities.  Rent suit is not immune from CPC.  Foreign states and diplomats enjoy exemption from taxation.
9/14/2010 KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 54

Thank you

9/14/2010

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

55

Jurisdiction of courts
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Jurisdiction
 Territorial jurisdictions  National law

 Principle of allegiance – all citizens owe allegiance to

their state and it is their duty to obey its laws and orders wherever they might be.  Nationality is the basis of jurisdiction in civil law countries.  Domicile – commonwealth countries  Foreign sovereigns, personnel of the diplomatic missions and international organizations.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 2

English law
 English court have jurisdiction if the defendant is

served with process.  Irrespective of he is a foreigner or was casually present in England.  Even a tourist in transit  - when the defendant is present within the jurisdiction  - when the court assumes jurisdiction against an absentee defendant.  - when the defendant submits to the jurisdiction.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 3

Early case
 Gurdial Singh v. Raja of Faridkot, (1894) 22 Cal. 222.  The Privy Council held that: ‘being properly territorial and

attaching, with certain restrictions, upon every person permanently or temporarily resident within the territory, does not follow a foreigner, after his withdrawal thence, and living in another state.  Nor to the courts of state in which the cause of action has arisen, nor in cases of contract to those of the locus solutionis, should resort be hard by the plaintiff, but to the courts of the state in which the defendant resides, the courts of the latter state having jurisdiction in all personal actions.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 4

In that 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.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

5

Jurisdiction
 Action lies in the court within whose jurisdiction the

defendant resides and if the defendant has left the jurisdiction the court cannot try the suit even if the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

6

Rule of territoriality
 Private International Law same as that of in England.  Kasinath v. Anant, (1899) Bom. 407

 Recovery of share on the profits from a property

outside its jurisdiction.  Defendant also residing outside the jurisdiction.  No jurisdiction to entertain the suit according to CPC. .

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

7

Early positions
 239. Srinivas v. Venkata Varda Ayyangar, (1906) 29

Mad.  Defendant was in Madras to practice as an apprentice to a Vakil of the High Court.  At the time of suit he was within the jurisdiction of the court.  ‘resident or present in the country’ at the time of suit.  Mere presence of the defendant is sufficient.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

8

Pvt. Int.n. law
 Patna High Court observed that ‘the court has no

jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a foreigner who did not permanently or temporarily reside within its jurisdiction or who had not submitted to its jurisdiction.  Suresh Narayan Sinha v. Akhauri Balbhadra Prasa, 1957 Pat. 256.  Indian courts have jurisdiction if the cause of action partly or wholly arises in India.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

9

Who can file suits?
 England - Subjects as well as foreigners, and body

corporate in England or outside?  Enemy aliens – cannot file suit  A foreigner can file a suit in India – Nizamuddin v Husseini AIR 1960 MP 212.  A Pakistani can file a suit once the war is over – Gyasuddin v Allah Tala Wakf Mausuma AIR 1986 All. 39.  An enemy alien permitted by the government to stay in India can file a suit.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 10

Jurisdiction
 Nationality – civil law countries  Domicile – common law countries

 Against whom an action can be filed
 Who can file an action.  What type of action may be filed.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

11

Submission to jurisdiction
 Express agreement or by conduct  Conduct: voluntarily appears as a defendant.

 Foreigner defendant files an affidavit and appears

through counsel to argue the case on merit.  When the foreigner-defendant moves to set aside a default judgment.  Carrying on business in England is amount to submission of jurisdiction.  Submission by contract – express not implied.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 12

Indian law
 If the person is outside its territories, the court will

have jurisdiction only when if he submits to the jurisdiction of the court.  If the judgment delivered in his absence would be null and void.  Appearing in the court and pleading the case is sufficient – Ramanathan chetiar v. Kali Muthu Pillai, (1914) 37 mad.  Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu, 1966 SC 634 – continued participation in litigation.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 13

Jurisdiction
 Fernandes v. Ray, 21 Bom. 373. –  Political agent of Kolhapur State

 On the way to London – stayed in Bombay for 5 days
 Whether 5 days stay confer jurisdiction on the court.  If the process is served on him – court have the

jurisdiction.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

14

Actions against whom?
 Actions inter parties – action in personam.  Payment of damages, breach of contract, tort, action

for recovery of debt.  If the defendant is present within the jurisdiction.  When the court assumes jurisdiction against an absentee defendant.  When the defendant submits to the jurisdiction.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

15

Common law
 If the cause of action, fully or partly within the

jurisdiction of the court.  Jurisdiction in personam – even the court can exercise jurisdiction in the absence of defendant.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

16

Civil Procedure Code 1908
 S.15 - Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the

lowest grade competent to try it.  16. Suits shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.  Suit can be filed either in the court within whose jurisdiction the property situated or the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business.  Wrong done to person or movables – whose jurisdiction the wrong was done, or the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 17

Different jurisdictions
 17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.

Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Court, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

18

CPC
 18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of

jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain. Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may,  if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property,  and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

19

CPC
 19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or

movables.  Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides,  or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court,  the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 20

S.20
 Other suits to be instituted where defendants

reside or cause of action arises.  the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.  the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.  Rule 20 – substituted service.  Rule 26 – service of summons through political agents.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 21

S.20
When the permanent or temporary residence of the defendant is within the jurisdiction, 2. If the defendant is engaged in some business within the jurisdiction, 3. If the defendant is working for gain within the jurisdiction, 4. If the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the jurisdiction.
1.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

22

Carries on business
 Frontier Bank v. Smt. Prakash Wati Bahl, ILR 1950

Punjab.  Deposited money at Dera Ismail Khan, headquarters – Pakistan.  Transfer to Delhi Branch failed.  Explanation II to S. 20 C.P.C.  H. Ahmed & Co. v. Kohinoor Glass Factory Ltd. 1961 A.P. 470 (F.B).  If the defendant carry on business, jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 23

Cause of action
 Gurudayal Singh v. Raja of Faridkot, (1894) 22 cal. 222.  Action lies in the court within whose jurisdiction the

defendant resides and if the defendant has left the jurisdiction the court cannot try the suit even if the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction.  Patna High Court held that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a foreigner who did not permanently or temporarily reside within its jurisdiction or who had not submitted to its jurisdiction.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 24

Contract
 ABC Laminart Pvt Ltd v. AP Agencies, Salem AIR 1989

SC 1239.  Contract was made  Was to be performed  Money under it was payable  Where the breach occurred  If a defendant not resident in India had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.  Admiralty jurisdiction
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 25

S.83
 Except alien enemy, all others ca file suit or

proceedings in an Indian Court.  An alien friend may sue in any Indian court.  An alien enemy residing in a foreign country cannot sue in Indian courts.  An alien enemy residing in India with the permission of the Government of India can sue – Angelina v. Joseph George Reittsteck, 1917 All. 374.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

26

S.84 foreign state – Immunity
 A foreign State may sue in any competent Court:

Provided that the object of the suit is to enforce a private right vested in the Ruler of such State or in any officer of such State in his public capacity.  Rahimatoola v. Nizame of Hyderabad, (1958) A.C. 379.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

27

S.86
 86. Suits against foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and

Envoys. No foreign State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a Secretary to that Government:  Provided that a person may, as a tenant of immovable property sue without such consent as aforesaid 2[a foreign State] from whom he holds or claims to hold the property.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 28

Consent of Central Government
 Consent of the Central Government is mandatory –

S.86(3).  Such consent can only be granted according to S.86(2).  No consent can be refused without giving a reasonable opportunity to the applicant.  The Government should show cogent reason for refusing permission.  Consent must be obtained before the institution of the suit.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 29

Exceptions
 Immunity does not extend to  award under Arbitration,

 proceedings under labour laws
 insolvency proceedings  Probate proceedings

 Recovery of rent
 Rulers of Indian states are not exempted from income

tax.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

30

Immunity
 No foreign state head or ambassadors or high

commissioners or diplomatic personnel can be arrested under the CPC.  Diplomatic persons.  Immunity not extends to trading activities.  Rent suit is not immune from CPC.  Foreign states and diplomats enjoy exemption from taxation.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

31

Immunity
 Sovereigns  Theory of absolute immunity –

 The Cristina, [1938] AC 485 – damages cannot be

recovered from a foreign sovereign.  Governmental corporations are also immune.  Modern theory – Restricted immunity  Acta jure imperri – acts of a sovereign state  Acta jure gestionis – acts of a commercial nature.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

32

Cases
 Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hyderabad, (1958) AC 397.  The principle of sovereign immunity is not founded on

any technical rules of law. It is founded on broad considerations of public policy, international law and comity.  The Christina, (1938) AC 485 – The courts of the country will not impeach a foreign sovereign.  Immunity is not granted if the state is not recognised.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

33

Foreign sovereign
 Person and property.  Mighell v. The Sultan of Johore, (1894)

 Indian provisions 84-87A.
 Recognition de facto or de jure has the same effect,

German Democratic Republic v. Dynamic Industrial Undertaking Ltd., 1972 Bom. 27.  Prior permission under S.86 is mandatory for filing a suit against an immune person under S.86.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

34

Indian law
 Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972.  Act made on the basis of Vienna Convention on

Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities of 1961.  Vienna Convention of 1967 was included as an annex.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

35

England
 State Immunity Act, 1978  Act of commercial nature - no immunity

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

36

Hague Convention on Choice of Court, 1965

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

37

Hague Convention, 1965
 Convention applies to agreements on the choice of a

court in civil and commercial matters.  Nationality of the parties are irrelevant.  Designated courts according to domestic law.  Decisions of the chosen court must be recognised and enforced in all contracting states.  None of the common law countries are implemented the Convention but follows the same principles.  Members of the Convention - 0
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 38

Brussels Convention

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

39

Brussels Convention, 1968.
 EC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of   

Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Labour, torts and contract of employment are excluded. Maintenance cases are fell within the Convention. with the goal of increasing economic efficiency and promoting the single market by harmonizing the rules on jurisdiction and preventing parallel litigation. It does not include revenues, customs or administrative matters.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

40

Objective
 It set out uniform rules for the assumption of jurisdiction by Member States in civil and

commercial cases.  In addition, the Convention laid down uniform rules relating to the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments among the Member States.  Free circulation of judgments throughout the Community.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 41

Regulations
 Regulation 1346/200018 relating to insolvency proceedings;  • Regulation 1347/200019 (commonly referred to as Brussels II) which

deals with jurisdiction over and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses;  Regulation 44/200120 which is concerned with jurisdiction over, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.  This is a revised and updated version of the Brussels Convention that replaces the 1968 original.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

42

Applicability
 The Brussels Regime covers legal disputes of a civil or

commercial nature (article 1).  Article 4 preserves the traditional rules for defendants who are not domiciled in a member state.  That is, if a defendant is domiciled elsewhere, then the Regime does not apply and the national court hearing the case is left to determine jurisdiction based on the traditional rules otherwise governing such questions in their legal system.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

43

Domicile
 In general, it is the domicile of the defendant that

determines which of these instruments applies in a given case.

 Article 52 of the Convention – courts of the

contracting parties have the jurisdiction to decide the question of domicile.  Mere presence of the defendant is not sufficient domicile.  The Convention will apply only when a foreign element is involved.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 44

Sue in any Member country
 A Member can sue in another court of the Member.  If

the parties are brought case in different jurisdictions, the first court will ceased of the matter.  The Tatry Case – EU Court of Justice – ‘the second court must decline jurisdiction only to the extent of the proceedings and parties before it.’

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

45

Jurisdiction under Lugano Convention, 1988
 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement

of Judgments.  6 members of the EC trading partners of European Free Trade Association (EFTA).  Members: UK, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein , Sweitzerland,  Civil and commercial matters.  Defendant is domiciled in EC.  Lugano Convention is parallel to the Brussels Convention.
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 46

Convention
 It is a parallel and amended version of the Brussels

Convention.  If the defendant is domiciled on any contracting state, have the jurisdiction.  Any EC Member state is a party to Brussels Convention, it will apply in matters of jurisdiction.  If the defendant is domiciled in an EFTA Contracting State, Lugano Convention will apply.

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

47

Convention on choice of court agreements, 2005

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

48

Application
 Parties – Singed – EU, US  Ratified – Mexico

 Convention shall apply in international cases to

exclusive choice of court agreements concluded in civil or commercial matters.  Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

49

India

 Hague Conference eon Private International Law since

2008. 1. Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents [12] 2. Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters [14] 3. Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters [20] 4. Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption [33]
©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 50

Thank you

©KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

51

Foreign Judgments
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Theories of recognition of J.
 Theory of comity  No foreign judgment can be recognised unless there is

reciprocity.  Lot of practical problems.  Obligation theory - adjudication by a foreign court becomes a legal obligation, which can be enforced in any country.  Doctrine of obligation – no problem of reciprocity.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

2

Other theories
 Grounds of judicial reason or ideas of social value or

both.  Every judgment must be recognised in the interest of justice.  Theory of acquired rights – since the foreign judgment implies an acquisition of a right, it should be enforced.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

3

Enforcement
 English courts have been enforcing foreign judgments

from the seventeenth century.  Early decisions have favoured the theory of comity.  Later the court supported the theory of obligation.  Early cases a foreign judgment was treated as a primary evidence of rights and liabilities of the parties.  Bur in 1870 – HL – held that a foreign judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction was conclusive and could not be re-examined on merits.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 4

England
 A plaintiff who had obtained a judgment from a

foreign court has the option either to bring an action on the foreign judgment or to sue on the original cause of action.  First judgment will be merely treated as a primary evidence of tights and liabilities of the parties.  Godard v. Grey (1870) 6 QB 139. - foreign judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction was conclusive and could not be re-examined on merits.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

5

Foreign judgment

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

6

Recognition in India
 S.13 of CPC  Indian courts absorbed the comity theory and

obligation theories to be the basis of the enforcement of foreign judgments.  J. Shah in Viswanathan v. Abdul Wazid, 1963 SC 1 – held that ‘though the rules of private international law are different in different countries, yet on the basis of comity certain rules are applied practically by all the countries.’

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

7

India
 Foreign judgments are recognized and enforced under

the statutory provision contained in the CPC.  S.13 – ‘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.’

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

8

Exceptions
 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 1[India] in cases in which such law is applicable;

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

9

Exceptions
 (d) where the proceedings in which the 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 1[India].

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

10

S.14 – presumption
 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.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 11

s.44 A
 ‘the decrees of foreign courts which can be executed

are the decrees of superior courts of a reciprocating territory as if it is the decree of the court executing the decree.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

12

Indian law
 A foreign judgment creditor can bring an action on a

foreign judgment.  Res – judicata can be applied in foreign judgments.  Indian court cannot impeach a foreign judgment on the ground of error on internal law or an error of fact or procedural error.  The foreign judgment should operate as res judicata in the country where it has been delivered.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

13

Competent jurisdiction
 The court must have the jurisdiction to deal the case.  Gurdayal Singh v. Raja of Faridkote, (1894) AC 670.  The PC held that ‘in a personal action… a decree

passed 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.’

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

14

Judgments in personam
 Personal jurisdiction depends upon the right of the

court to summon the defendant.  Jurisdiction of personal action depend upon the presence of the defendant within the jurisdiction.  Mallappa Yellappa v. Raghavendra Sham Rao, ILR (1938) Bom. 16.  6 cases in which foreign court may have jurisdiction:  1. if the defendant is subject of the foreign country.  2. if the defendant is served with the process while temporary present within the foreign country.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 15

Factors
 3. if the defendant is a resident in the foreign country

when action has begun against him.  4. if the defendant in his character as plaintiff in the foreign action has selected the forum where the judgment was given against him.  5. if the defendant voluntarily appeared before the foreign court;  6. If the defendant has contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 16

Action in rem
 A proceeding against a ship or other chattel in which

the plaintiff seeks either to have the res judicata to him in property or possession, or to have it sold under the authority of the court, and the proceeds, or part thereof, adjudicated to him, in satisfaction of his pecuniary claims.  Taylor v. Judge of the Court of Registration.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

17

Action in rem
 Judgments in rem are conclusive.  Judgment in rem against tangibles – ship – admiralty

jurisdiction.  Judgment of divorce is a judgment in rem – controversial?  A res is a tangible thing within the jurisdiction of the court.  A judgment in rem is a judgment under (a) possession or property in a thing is adjudicated to a person,  (b) the sale of a thing is decreed in satisfaction of a claim againstKDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 the thing itself. 18

In -Rem
 (c) the status is adjudicated upon, such as a decree of

nullity or divorce;  (d) property is ordered to be sold by way of administration in bankruptcy or on death.  Difference: res – binds all persons claiming an interest in the property inconsistent with the judgment even though pronounced in their absence.  In personam – merely determines the rights of litigants inter se.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 19

Rem
 Jurisdiction in rem accorded universal recognition,

even if the defendant is neither a resident of the foreign country nor has submitted to the jurisdiction of its courts.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

20

Immovable property

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

21

Ex-parte decree
 Exparte decree of the foreign Court cannot be presumed to

be on merit by the aid of Section 114(e) of Evidence Act.  Where ex parte judgment passed granting decree for money but nothing indicated whether any documents were looked into or whether merits of the case considered. Such judgements will not be enforceable in India.  For more details kindly visit:  M/s International Woollen Mills Vs.M/s Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 2134 – 2001(5)SCC 265 – 2001 (3) Rec Civ R 158 – 2002 (1) Mad LW 28 – 2001(2) LR 1765 – 2001(20 Cur CC 148 – 2001 (2) Civil Court C 448 – 2001 (44) All LR 354 – 2001 (3) All Mah LR 554
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

22

conclusiveness
 Where the judgment was not on merit and the

judgment was given ex parte only on the basis of pleadings and documents of the plaintiff – Defense filed before Hongkong Court not taken into consideration –  Held the judgment being not on merit did not have force of law For execution of such decree prior permission of Central Govt. was necessary. AIR 1990 Bom.170 – Algemene Bank Nederland NV Vs. Satish Dayalal Choksi.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 23

Merits
 A foreign judgment cannot be re-opened on merit to

its logical conclusion.  S.13(b) of CPC – a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive if it has not been given on the merits of the case.  Court cannot sit in appeal over a foreign judgment.  Judgment must be on merit.  A compromise judgment is not on merit – GuidmetlaChnia v. Kota venkata Subba Rao, 1946 Mad. 296.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 24

Judgment opposed to natural Justice
 A foreign judgment cannot be implemented if it is

contrary to natural justice.  Defendant is not served with notice –  Procedural irregularities  Audi alteram partem  Judge personally interested in the case

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

25

Divorce decree
 Foreign divorce decree where husband and wife were

Hindus and governed by Hindu Marriage Act.  When suit for judicial separation and maintenance was pending in Indian Court, husband obtained decree of divorce from the Court in USA though wife did not submit to the jurisdiction of USA, held, such decree obtained by husband was not enforceable in India [AIR 2003 Del. 175 – Smt.Anubha Vs. Vikas Aggarwal and Others]

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

26

Judgment opposed to Public Policy
 The court will decline to enforce a foreign judgment if

it is opposed to public policy.  Foreign judgment awarding perpetual maintenance to illegitimate child would not be enforced – Re Macartney [1921] 1 Ch 522.  Agreement obtained by undue influence.  Judgment vitiated by fraud

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

27

Against Indian Law
 Acceptance

of foreign judgement when not contradictory to principle of law laid down by Indian legislature.  If such foreign judgement is contrary to Indian law it will not be acceptable AIR 2003 Cal.105 Murari Ganguly and others Vs.Kanailal Garai and others.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

28

Indian constitution
 Article 261 – final judgments or orders delivered or

passed by the civil courts in any part of the territory of India shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law.  Reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments (S.44A(1)]  Foreign judgments can be executed only in District courts.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

29

Hague Convention
 The Hague Convention on the Recognition and

Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1971.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

30

Thank you

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

31

KD Raju

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Direct execution of foreign decrees
 Ordinarily foreign decrees cannot be executed directly.  To fie a suit for enforcement.

 Executed directly on the basis of reciprocity.
 Direct execution in certain cases

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

2

Indian courts
 From April 1, 1951 – CPC is applicable to all states of

the Indian Union.  (A. 261 – 3) of the Indian Constitution provides “ Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of India shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law.”  S.43 and 44 of CPC – (CPC Amendment, 1951) – execution of decrees and orders of civil and revenue courts.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 3

S. 43, 44, and 45
 1. execution of decrees by Indian court.  2. execution of decrees in any court formed by the

Indian court outside India.  3. S.44-A - reciprocal enforcement of foreign decrees –  Decrees of the superior courts of the United Kingdom and other foreign countries with which India has reciprocal arrangement.  certified copy to be produced to the Indian court.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

4

Foreign decrees
 Such a certificate will be conclusive proof .  Can be executed in District Courts only S.44 A-1

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

5

Draft convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters

 Concluded 1 February 1971  Entered into force 20 August 1979

 (1) the status or capacity of persons or questions of

family law, including personal or financial rights and  obligations between parents and children or between spouses;  (2) the existence or constitution of legal persons or the powers of their officers;  (3) maintenance obligations, so far as not included in sub-paragraph (1) of this Article;
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 6

Exceptions
 (4) questions of succession;  (5) questions of bankruptcy, compositions or

analogous proceedings, including decisions which may result therefrom and which relate to the validity of the acts of the debtor;  (6) questions of social security;  (7) questions relating to damage or injury in nuclear matters.  This Convention does not apply to decisions for the payment of any customs duty, tax or penalty.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 7

Application
 A.3 - This Convention shall apply irrespective of the

nationality of the parties.  A decision rendered in one of the Contracting States shall be entitled to recognition and enforcement in another Contracting State under the terms of this Convention –  (1) if the decision was given by a court considered to have jurisdiction within the meaning of this Convention, and  (2) if it is no longer subject to ordinary forms of review in the State of origin.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

8

A.5
 Recognition refused in following cases:  (1) if recognition or enforcement of the decision is

manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the State of enforcement.  (2) if the decision was obtained by fraud in the procedural sense;

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

9

Res-judicata
 (3) if proceedings between the same parties, based on

the same facts and having the same purpose –  a) are pending before a court of the State addressed and those proceedings were the first to be instituted, or  b) have resulted in a decision by a court of the State addressed, or  c) have resulted in a decision by a court of another State which would be entitled to recognition and enforcement under the law of the State addressed.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 10

A. 7
 Recognition or enforcement may not be refused for the

sole reason that the court of the State of origin has applied a law other than that which would have been applicable according to the rules of private international law of the State addressed.  Nevertheless, recognition or enforcement may be refused if, to reach its decision, the court of the State of origin had to decide a question relating either to the status or the capacity of a party or to his rights in other matters excluded from this Convention.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 11

A.8
 there shall be no review of the merits of the decision

rendered by the court of origin.  Jurisdiction A.9- In questions relating to the jurisdiction of the court of the State of origin, the authority addressed shall be bound by the findings of fact on which that court based its jurisdiction, unless the decision was rendered by default.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

12

Jurisdiction – A.10
 The court of the State of origin shall be considered to

have jurisdiction:  (1) if the defendant had, at the time when the proceedings were instituted, his habitual residence in the State of origin, or, if the defendant is not a natural person, its seat, its place of incorporation or its principal place of business in that State;  a commercial, industrial or other business establishment, or a branch office, and was cited there in proceedings arising from business transacted by such establishment or branch office;
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 13

Jurisdiction
 (3) if the action had as its object the determination of

an issue relating to immovable property situated in the State of origin;  (4) in the case of injuries to the person or damage to tangible property, if the facts which occasioned the damage occurred in the territory of the State of origin, and if the author of the injury or damage was present in that territory at the time when those facts occurred;

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

14

Jurisdiction
 (5) if, by a written agreement or by an oral agreement

confirmed in writing within a reasonable time, the parties agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the court of origin disputes which have arisen or which may arise in respect of a specific legal relationship, unless the law of the State addressed would not permit such an agreement because of the subject-matter of the dispute;

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

15

Recognition and enforcement
 The party seeking recognition or applying for

enforcement shall furnish –  (1) a complete and authenticated copy of the decision;  (2) if the decision was rendered by default, the originals or certified true copies of the documents required to establish that the summons was duly served on the defaulting party;  (3) all documents required to establish that the decision fulfills the conditions of sub-paragraph (2) of the first paragraph of Article 4, and, where appropriate, of the second paragraph of Article 4;
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

16

Procedure
 (4) unless the authority addressed otherwise requires,

translations of the documents referred to above, certified as correct either by a diplomatic or consular agent or by a sworn translator or by any other person so authorized in either State.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

17

A.14.
 The procedure for the recognition or enforcement of

foreign judgments is governed by the law of the State addressed so far as this Convention does not provide otherwise.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

18

Resjudicata A.20
 If two States have concluded a Supplementary Agreement

pursuant to Article 21, the judicial authorities of either State may dismiss an action brought before them  or may stay such an action when other proceedings between the same parties,  based on the same facts and having the same purpose,  are pending in a court of another State and these proceedings may result in a decision which the authorities of the State in which the first mentioned action was brought would be bound to recognize under the terms of this Convention.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 19

Ratification
 Article 27  This Convention shall be open for signature by the

States represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and Cyprus, Iceland and Malta.  It shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

20

India is a party
 Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International  

Law [01] Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents [12] Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters [14] Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters [20] Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption [33]
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 21

Arbitration
 Arbitration proceedings are governed by the law of the

seat of the arbitration.  Indian Arbitration Act 1899 – Bombay, Calcutta and Madras.  Arbitration Act of 1940.  1961 – Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961.  New York Convention on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 22

Legislations
 1996 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act  Based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

23

Enforcement of foreign awards
 Part – II of Act. – New York Convention  S.44 - "foreign award" means an arbitral award on

differences between persons arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force hi India.  S.46 – binding nature - Any foreign award which would be enforceable under this Chapter shall be treated as binding for all purposes on the persons as between whom it was made.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

24

Evidence
 S.47 - (a) the original award or a copy thereof, duly

authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made;  (b) the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified thereof; and  (c) such evidence as may he necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

25

Non-enforcement
 (2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be

refused if the Court finds that –  (a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or  (b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India.  Explanation.- Without prejudice to the generality of clause (b), it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

26

Family Law -Pvt. Int.na.Law
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

1

Summary
 Marriage  Matrimonial causes

 Legitimacy and legitimation
 Adoption  Guardianship and custody of minor children

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

2

Marriage
 Concept of marriage  Contract

 Sacrament
 Hyde v. Hyde, (1866) LR 1 P&D 130 – marriage through

a contract is a contract sui generis.  Held that a marriage was a voluntary union for life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of others.  Polygamous marriage  Harvey v. Farnie, 1880 – cannot be recognized.  Ali v. Ali, 1966
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 3

Hague Convention
 The Hague Convention on the Celebration and

Recognition of the Validity of Marriage 1978.  India not adopted it.  Celebration of marriages  Christians – contract  Roman Catholics church– sacrament  Muslims – contract  Hindus - sacrament  Chinese Buddhist - contract
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 4

Validity
 English courts against polygamous marriages.  Harvey v. Farnie, 1880. – AC recognised that

polygamous marriages could not be recognised.  Validity is determined by lex celebrationis and characterization of monogamous or polygamous by lex fori.  Lendrum v. Chakravarti, 1929 S.L.T 96 – marriage solemnized in Glasgow church between Hindu belonging to monogamous sect in India with a scot woman domiciled in Scotland was held valid.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 5

Polygamy
 Ali v. Ali, (1966) 2 W.L.R 620. – personal law permits

polygamy – he cannot validly take a changes his domicile to England.  Nachimson v. Nachimson, (1930) – among shia Muslims is governed celebrationis.  The crucial question is which law monogamous or polygamous.

second wife if he Mutta marriages by the lex loci will decide it is

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

6

Which law?
 Matrimonial domicile?  A monogamous marriage at the inception cannot join a

polygamous sect . – Mehta v. Mehta (1945) 2 All E.R. 690.  Sofia v. Shive Prasad, (1946) Cal. 484. – Indian hindu already married - married second wife in Paris – French law not recognised polygamy – came to India-wife filed a petition for nullity of marriage - marriage at the time not valid.  Baindail v. baindail, Indian domiciled Hindu already having a wife in India, married an English girl.  English girl filed an application for nullity – granted.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 7

England
 Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages)

Act, 1972 – permits to give matrimonial relief to parties of marriage whose system allow polygamous marriages.  Alhaji Mohammed v. Knott, (1968) 2 W.L.R 1446.  Polygamous married persons would be recognized in English Law.  entitled to maternity benefit and widow is entitled to benefits under the national insurance schemes.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 8

S.494 IPC
 Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in

any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

9

Hindu
 Hindu law  Dayabhaga

 Mitakshara
 Polygamy – Muslims  Polyandry – Lahaul Valley bordering Tibet.

 Some communities in South India.
 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  Christian Marriage Act, 1872.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

10

Other systems
 Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 prohibits

polygamous marriage after changing his domicile.  Parsis - monogamous  Special Marriage Act, 1954 – contract.  Jews – monogamous – contract – Katuba

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

11

Conversion
 Khambatta v. Khambatta, - Muslim married to Scot

women – 1905 in Scotland.  Came to India and the wife embraced Islam.  1922 – husband pronounced divorced in India  Wife Married under special marriage act, 1872.  After 10 years – wife petitioned for nullity of marriage – Scottish marriage was not dissolved by any law.  Second marriage is bigamous and void.  Law after conversion – first marriage validly dissolved.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 12

Conversion
 Nurjahan v. Tisanco, 45 CWN 1047.  Two Russian Christians married in Berlin.

 Lived together many years in Europe.
 1938 wife came to India and the husband went to

Scotland.  1940 – wife converted to Islam.  Thrice offered the husband to become Muslim.  Refused the acceptance by husband.  Wife initiated dissolution of marriage in Indian court.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 13

Conversion
 Indian court held that parties were not domiciled in India – dismissed   


 

the suit. No spouse can, on converting to another religion, impose his new religion on the other. Aiyasaabibi v. Subodh Chandra, (1945) 2 Cal. 405 – allowed wife’s petition. – law after conversion. Saeeda Khatun v. Ovedia, (1945) 49 CWN 754. Jews domiciled in India No matrimonial relief to a convert – spouse under new personal law. No law under which a marriage performed under one personal law can be dissolved under another personal law.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

14

Dissolution of marriage
 Both parties change their religion, then they will be

governed by new personal law  Khambatta v. Khambatta, 1935 Bom. 5  One of the spouse changes religion – no matrimonial relief under new law  S.13(1)(ii) – one of the spouses ceased to be Hindu by converting to another religion.  Muslim - Apostasy – complete and immediate dissolution of marriage.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 15

Special Marriage Act
 Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the solemnization of marriages, a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the marriage the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:-

(a) neither party has a spouse living; (b) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic; (c) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years; (d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship; and (e) where the marriage is solemnized outside the territories to which this Act extends, both parties are citizens of India domiciled in the said territories.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 16

Foreign marriages
 Foreign Marriages Act, 1969  Facility for Indian national to marry abroad with

another Indian national or a national of another country.  Or domiciled in another country.  Monogamous  Civil marriage  Marriage is valid under lex loci celebrationis – S.17

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

17

Validity of marriages
 Validity must be formal and material  1. capacity to marry

 2. performed necessary ceremonies
 Problem of characterization:  Which law will be applied for judging material

validity?  Material validity  Formal validity

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

18

Material validity
 If the courts of two countries consider the validity of a

marriage at the same time.  Odgen v. Odgen, (1908) – parental consent.  French law – marriage not valid  English Law – valid  Functional test – what is the purpose of putting any requirement.  To test whether the requirement is only a formality or integral part of public or social interest.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 19

Validity
 Domicile of parties?  Matrimonial home?  England – under English law  One of the parties is domiciled in England – English law  Both parties are domiciled abroad – lex loci celebrationis.  Apt v. Apt, (1947) – Argentinean domiciled in Germany

married a Jew resident in England through proxy.  Not valid according to English law – lex loci celebrationis – valid.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

20

Materiality
 English law – no such differentiation between material

validity and formal validity.  According to lex loci celebrationis.  Material validity according to the law of the domicile of each party at the time of marriage.  Pre-marriage domicile and lex loci celebrationis will determine the formal validity.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

21

English law
 Capacity to marry – domicile of each party  Brook v. Brook, (1877) – prohibited degrees of

relationship – valid in Denmark – HL said the marriage is void because the parties lacked capacity to marry under ante-nuptial marriage.  Sottomayor v. De Barros, 1877 – Portugal – prohibited degrees of relationship – valid in England - void.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

22

Consent of parties
 Essential validity  H v. H, (1954) – Hungarian domiciled girl married her

cousin in Hungary who domiciled in France.  Parties never lived together.  Husband – France  Wife – England  English court for nullity of marriage  Void for lack of consent.  Lacked consent under pre-nuptial domicile.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010 23

Indian law
 Capacity is determined by personal laws.  Lex loci celebrationis

 Hindu Marriage Act – any two Hindus can perform

marriage.  All communities – personal laws  Foreign Marriage Act, 1969

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

24

Formal validity
 Lex loci celebrationis  Personal laws

 Ceremonies according to local laws
 Special marriage act  Civil marriage

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

25

Thank you

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2010

26

Matrimonial Reliefs in Pvt. Int.Law

Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur kdraju@rgsoipl.iitkgp.ernet.in

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

1

Matrimonial Causes
 English law – 1857 – matrimonial causes – jurisdiction

– ecclesiastical courts.  Divorce was unknown  Jurisdiction extend to all Christians  Church was not concerned with domicile or nationality of parties.  Jurisdiction based on residence of parties.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

2

Matrimonial causes Act
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857  Indissolubility of marriage was repudiated.

 Jurisdiction shifted to civil courts.
 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973  Matrimonial Proceedings Act,1973

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

3

Indian law
 Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

 Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1865.
 Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.  Special Marriage Act, 1872, 1923, 1954

 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
 Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939.

 Foreign Marriage Act, 1969.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

4

Jurisdiction
 English Law  Domicile or habitual residence

 Abolishes wife’s dependent domicile
 Domiciled in England at the time of proceedings–

Indyka v. Indyka, (1969) 1 AC 33.  Habitually resident in England for 1 year.  Substantial link between his residence and country.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

5

Validity
 De Barros v. De Barros (No 1), (1877) 3 PD 1.  The law of the country where the marriage is

solemnized.  Personal capacity to marry according to domicile  Valid in accordance with the country where the marriage took place.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

6

Lex loci celebrationis
 Marriage where it is performed  Where the poxy was appointed

 Man domiciled in Ireland – woman domiciled in

Ghana – married according to the tribe ceremonies in Ghana – both parties in England –  English court held: consent of parties needed according to the lex loci celebrationis.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

7

Foreign marriages
 Ogden v. Ogden, [1908] p46 (CA)  Woman domiciled in England

 Married a French man in England
 Annulled the marriage in France for want of parental


 

consent. Husband married another woman Petition for dissolution in English Court. English woman married another man Second marriage of English woman annulled on the ground of bigamy.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010 8

India
 Domicile of origin or nationality is not relevant

for jurisdiction.  Last resided together  Domiciled in India at the time of filing the petition.  Nullity of marriage - Only if the marriage was solemnized in India.  Restitution or judicial separation – the petitioner must be resident of India at the time of presentation of petition.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010 9

India
 Main basis is residence  It is also not necessary that they should be Indian

nationals.  Lex loci celebrationis  Noor Jehan Begum v. Eugene Tiscenko, AIR 1941 Cal 582.  Foreign Marriage Act 1969, S.23 – lex loci celebrationis.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

10

Foreign Marriage Act 1969
 Marriage between two persons outside India - one

Indian citizen .  If its prohibited by law of the country where it is performed or it is inconsistent with international law or the comity of nations.  The matrimonial proceedings in India should be according to the Special Marriage Act 1954.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

11

Foreign marriage- relief
 Cannot be granted:  Parties not domiciled in India before marriage

 Domiciled in India when the wife presented the

petition  Ordinarily residing in India for the last 3 years before the petition was presented.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

12

Hindu
 Where the marriage was solemnized  Parties last resided together

 Respondent at the time of presentation of petition

resides  The petitioner is residing at the time of presentation of petition.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

13

Special marriage Act
 S.31.2  the District Court may, by virtue of this sub-section,

entertain a petition by a wife domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends for nullity of marriage or for divorce if she is resident in the said territories and has been ordinarily resident , therein for a period of three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the husband is not resident in the said territories.  Husband and wife are in two countries
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010 14

Temporary living
 Suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the

  

defendant resides at the time of filing of the suit – Muslims. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, - residence includes both permanent dwelling and temporary living at a place, but it does not include ‘ a casual stay in or a flying visit to a particular place. Murphy v. Murphy, 1921 Bom 211. Tara v. Jaspal Singh, (1946) 1 Cal. 604. – stayed in Darjeeling for a week. Clarance v. Raicheal, 1964 Mys. 67.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010 15

Choice of law
 Once decided the jurisdiction – personal law of the

parties.  Lex fori  Special marriage Act will apply in case if some foreign element is involved.  Christopher Neelkantam v. Annie Neelkantam, 1959 Raj. 133.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

16

Foreign marriages Act 1969
 S.18 – provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954.  S.23 – lex loci celebrationis.

 Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswami, AIR 1971 SC 2352
 Capacity to marry depend on law of a person’s

domicile.  Bhagwan Ghamshamdas v. Charlotte Zingg (1959) ILR 1 Cal 4.  Indian married a Srilankan, within 1 year of dissolution of marriage in violation of S15 then.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010 17

Recognition of foreign divorce
 English Law- Recognition of Divorces and Legal

Separations Act, 1971.  Joao Gloria Pires v. Ana Joaquina Pires, 1967 Goa 113.  Marriage in Goa – husband got divorce decree from Ugandan Court –  Whether the decree can be implemented in Goan court.  Opposed to public policy?

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

18

cases
 Teja Singh v. Satya, 1970.  Divorce decree pronounced by court of domicile will

be accorded recognition universally and should be recognised in India.  Husband was not domiciled in Nevada.  Hogan Bhai v. Hariben, 1985 Guj 187.  Not recognized.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

19

Law commission –

th 65

report

 Recognition of decrees granted in the

country of domicile of the parties should continue.  The country of domicile recognises the decree, India will recognize.  Will not recognize if other party don’t have notice of proceedings.  No opportunity of hearing.  Contrary to public policy.  Obtained by fraud.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010 20

Nullity of marriage
 Void and voidable  Age rule

 Voidable – valid marriage
 Void – no legal consequences flow from it  Destructive impediment.

 Validity of marriage – legitimacy of children.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

21

Nullity
 Can be granted if the marriage solomnised in India  The petitioner was resident in India when the petition

was presented  Restitution – petitioner in in India at the time of filing the petition

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

22

Void marriages
 Impotency  Lunatic or idiot

 Prohibited degrees of relationship
 Former husband or wife living – marriage in force  Muslims – lack of proper ceremonies

 Marrying sisters – neither void nor valid –irregular.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

23

Voidable marriages
 Marriage not consummated  Pregnant at the time of marriage

 Coercion or fraud
 Incapable of giving valid consent  Recurrent attack of insanity or epilepsy

 Domicile as well as residence were considered as the

basis of jurisdiction.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

24

Validity of marriage
 Ecclesiastical courts applied the law of      

celebrations. De Renevile v. De Reneville, (1948) p. 100 Domiciled French man with woman domiciled in England Court held: if she is domiciled in England. It will depend on the question whether the marriage was void or voidable. Void – court have jurisdiction Voidable – no jurisdiction.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010 25

India
 Formal validity of marriage will be determined by     

lex loci celebrationis. Material validity by personal law of parties. There is no case in India on the recognition of foreign nullity decrees. Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act, 1971. 13 of CPC. Satya v. Teja Singh

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

26

Polygamous marriages
 The Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous     

Marriages) Act, 1972. Declaration of marriage valid or void Legitimacy of children Nullity of marriage Judicial separation Maintenance

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

27

Custody
 Kuldeep Sidhu v. Charan Singh, AIR 1989 (P&H)    

103. Indians married in India but settled in Canada Father came to India with two children Mother came to India with an order of custody of children from a Canadian Court. Indian court allowed custody.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

28

Thank you

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2010

29

Adoption, custody and guardianship
Dr. Raju KD
Assistant Professor
Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law IIT Kharagpur

West Bengal

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

1

Adoption
 "Adoption" means the process through which the

adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and become the legitimate child of his adoptive parents with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to the relationship (Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 amended in 2006)  Guardians and Wards Act, 1860  Children’s Act, 1960  Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 2

Adoption
 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Hindu

male or female has the capacity to make an adoption, major and of sound mind.  Marred male can adopt only with consent of wife.  married woman cannot adopt even with the consent of husband.  It is the right of the husband to exercise the right of adoption.  Married woman can adopt a child if the other spouse ceased to be a Hindu.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 3

Female
 S. 8 - Capacity of a female Hindu to take in

adoption.- Any female Hindu (a) who is sound mind,  (b) who is not a minor, and  (c) who is not married, or if married, whose marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.  Has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 4

Adoption
 ``There cannot be a valid adoption (under the Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956) unless the adopted child is transferred from one family to another.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

5

Indian law
 Only Hindu law recognised adoption.  Adopter as well as child should be Hindu.

 The Act does not lay down any requirement of

residence, domicile or nationality.  Nobody can adopt without the permission of the court.  Jurisdiction – child ordinarily resides (s.9)  Re Sister Gemma, 1970 Mad. 263 – court held that French lady can adopt a destitute child – welfare of the child is most important.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 6

Personal law
 No statute dealing with other than Hindus on

adoption.  Adoption is not known to Mahomedan law.  If a custom permits adopts in a particular area, it is recognised. (j&K).

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

7

Christians
 There is no specific statute enabling or regulating

adoption among Christians in India.  In the past persons who wished to adopt a minor child usually approached the Court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 and an order of guardianship in respect of the minor child is obtained.  Customary law was reconised by courts.  Sohan Lal V. A.Z. Makuin (AIR 1929 Lahore 230)

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

8

Christians
 Philip Alfred Malvin V. Gonsalvis, (see 1999 (1) KLT

292 = AIR 1999 Ker. 187) wherein a Single Bench of the High Court of Kerala held that it is an admitted fact that Christian Law does not prohibit adoption.  Maxin George v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd [2005 (3) K.L.T 57]. – foster son is not adopted son unless the formalities of adoption takes place.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

9

Foreign adoptions
 Rights of Child Resolution adopted by the United

Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1959 and Guidelines formulated by Expert group and adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations its 20th session and also through adoption of Children Bill, 1980 relating to Inter-Country adoption legislation.  Under the Adoption of Children Bill, 1980 giving in and taking in child for adoption was made unlawful. Clauses 23 and 24 of the said bill were most relevant in this respect.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 10

Recognition of foreign adoptions
 English practice is that it will recognize the adoption if

the adopter and the child is from the same country which recognised the adoption.  Personal status is determined by lex domicilii.  Re Valentine’s Settlement, (1965) Ch. 831 (C.A).  South Rhodesian adopted a girl child and a boy domiciled in south Africa.  Adoption not valid in Rhodesia.  The court held that the adoption must be recognized in adopter’s country.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 11

India
 The law is yet to develop  C.S. Natraja v. C.S. Subbaraya, (1949) 54 PC.

 PC held that widow had no capacity to adopt at that

point of time according to Madras law.  PC held that the matter of adoption to be determined according to the law of domicile of both child and adopter.  They were in Pondicherry – according to French Law.  Adoption valid according to lex domicilii.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 12

1995 guidelines - 2006
 Lakshmikant Pandey v. Union of India, 1984, 1986 and 1987 – SC

formulated guidelines for inter-country adoption.  Laxmikant Pandey Vs. Union of India [AIR1984 SC469].  para 8 of the judgment that, " while supporting Inter-Country adoption, it is necessary to bear in mind that the primary object of giving the child in adoption being the welfare of the people, great care has to be exercised in permitting the child to be given in adoption to foreign parents, lest the child may be neglected or abandoned by the adoptive parents in the foreign country or the adoptive parents may not be able provide to the child a life of moral and material security or the child may be subjected to moral and sexual abuse or forced labour or experimentation for medical or other research and may be placed in worse situation than that in his own country .”
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 13

SC on adoption
 " if a child is to be given in Inter-Country adoption, it

would be desirable that it is given in such adoption before it completes the age of 3 years.“  The Bombay High Court in Re Jay Kevin Salerno [AIR1988 BOM139] iterated that " where the custody of a child is with an institution, the child is kept in a private nursing home or with a private party for better individual care of the child, it does not mean that the institution ceases to have the custody of the child."

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

14

1995 Guidelines
 The object of the guideline is to implement the

judgments in L.K. Pandey vs. Union of India and Others between 1984 and 1991 and various other court orders from time to time and to take all other measures necessary for the promotion of in-country adoption of children as well as welfare of children in general.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

15

Guidelines
 The goal is to find a family for as many orphan

children as possible and to safeguard their interests as visualized in the UN Convention on Child Rights and Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption (both ratified by India).  Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment – Ministry  The Central Adoption Resource Authority (hereinafter called CARA) functions as a nodal body and the Central Authority for adoption matters.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

16

Procedure
 The Supreme Court of India has laid down that every

application from a foreigner/NRI/PIO (as applicable) desiring to adopt a child must be sponsored by a social or child welfare agency recognised or licensed by the Government or a Department of the Foreign Govt. to sponsor such cases in the country in which the foreigner is resident.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

17

Criteria for Foreign Prospective Adoptive Parents (FPAP)
 Married couple with 5 years of a stable relationship, age, financial and

health status with reasonable income to support the child should be evident in the Home Study Report.  Prospective adoptive parents having composite age of 90 years or less can adopt infants and young children. These provisions may be suitably relaxed in exceptional cases, such as older children and children with special needs, for reasons clearly stated in the Home Study Report. However, in no case should the age of any one of the prospective adoptive parents exceed 55 years.  Single persons (never married, widowed, divorced) up to 45 years can also adopt.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

18

Criteria for FPAP
 Age difference of the single adoptive parent and child

should be 21 years or more.  A FPAP in no case should be less than 30 years and more than 55 years.  A second adoption from India will be considered only when the legal adoption of the first child is completed.  Same sex couples are not eligible to adopt

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

19

Procedure
 The applicants will have to contact or register with an

Enlisted Foreign Adoption Agency (EFAA)/ in their country.  Home study report (HSR).  Adoption application dossier  On receipt of the documents, Recognised Indian Placement Agency (RIPA) will make efforts to match a child who is legally free for inter-country adoption with the applicant.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 20

Procedure
 If a child is declared as free for inter country adoption

– clearance from ACA is required.  Non objection certificate from CARA.  Filing of petition in court - RIPA shall file a petition for adoption/guardianship in the competent court (district court).  RIPA – has to apply for passport and visa.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

21

Hague convention
 CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT

OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION – 1993 – in force – 1995.  A. 14 - Persons habitually resident in a Contracting State, who wish to adopt a child habitually resident in another Contracting State, shall apply to the Central Authority in the State of their habitual residence.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 22

Recognition
 A.23 - An adoption certified by the competent

authority of the State of the adoption as having been made in accordance with the Convention shall be recognized by operation of law in the other Contracting States.  Article 24  The recognition of an adoption may be refused in a Contracting State only if the adoption is manifestly contrary to its public policy, taking into account the best interests of the child.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 23

Hague provisions
 Adoption will takes place only after the competent

authorities of the ‘state of origin’ have determined that the child is adoptable.  Consent of the parents, if the child is mature enough, to be consulted.  Competent authorities of the receiving state to give consent.  Adoption will take place only before the age of 18.  It should not be contrary to public policy or at the interest of the child.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 24

Recognition
 Adoption includes recognition of the legal parent-

child relationship.  Parental responsibility  Termination of the pre-existing legal relationship between child, mother and father.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

25

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

26

Child
 Indian Law – natural person below the age of eighteen

years is known as minor – Indian Majority Act, 1875.  Guardianship and custody together –  A foreign patent desiring to exercise his parental control over the child in India can do so only in accordance with Indian law.  If an English parent domiciled outside can exercise the guardianship and custody of children in England under English law.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 27

Jurisdiction
 Basis:

Nationality is the basis of family law matters.  Clause 37 of the Charter of the SC at Bombay and Clause 25 of the Charter of the SC at Calcutta authorized the court to appoint guardians.  Courts where the ordinary residence of children have jurisdiction.  Lalita v. Paramatma Prasad, 1940.  Chimallal v. Rajaram, 1937 Bom.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

28

Jurisdiction
 Surinder Kaur /sandhu v. Harbux Singh Sandhu, 1984

SC 1224.  Welfare of children is of paramount importance.  The state which was intimate contact with the issues have the jurisdiction.  The mere presence of the child in India would not give jurisdiction of Indian court.  English courts apply the English domestic law rather than apply the law of domicile or nationality.  India apply Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 29

Recognition of foreign Orders
 English courts taken the view that if the child is in

England the interest of child is important and even the court can change the foreign orders according to circumstances.  Staurt v. Bute, (1861) 9 HLC 440.  English courts will scrutinize the foreign guardianship orders strictly.  In Re H, 1966  English court given custody of child to Father in New York.
KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008 30

India
 Margrett v. Chakoo, 1970 Ker. 1.  Indian married German lady and later on he flew back

to India with two children.  Kerala High Court recognized the order of German court and given custody of the children to the German mother.  Elizabeth Dinshow v. Arvind, ILR (1984) SC also taken the same view.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

31

Guardianship
 application by foreign Nationals to be appointed  as Guardian of Indian Children the Karnatak High

Court held that the Court is bound to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the child once it is satisfied that the order. it is likely to make. is for the welfare of the child.  Society of Sisters of Charity St. Gerosa Convent and others vs, Karnataka State Council for child Welfare A.I.R. 1992 Kant 263 Para19-20.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

32

Personal laws: Guardianship
 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956  Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

 Father is the natural guardian of Hindu child.
 If father is not taking care of the child – mother  Customary mohammadan law applied in India.

 Minor boy – up to 7 – mother
 Girl – up to the age of puberty

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

33

Foreign orders
 Usually Indian courts will give effect to foreign orders

if it is not prejudicially affect the interest of the child.

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

34

Thank you

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL-2008

35

Dr. KD Raju Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur kdraju@rgsoipl.iitkgp.ernet.in

Property
 Movables – lex domicilii  Immovable – lex situs

 Movables – tangibles and intangibles
 Movables – choses in possession & choses in action.  choses in possession – car, horse, tv etc.

 choses in action – stock and shares, patents, right to

recover a debt…..

Movable or immovable
 According to the law of the place where the property

is.  If there is a conflict between the lex fori and lex situs on whether th property is movable immovable, lex situs will determine.  Re Berchtold, (1923) 1 Ch.192.  Freehold interest in England was declared as immovable property.  Hungarial law – movable property

Movable or immovable
 Re Cutliffe,(1940) Ch. 565.  Stock of a British Company.

 Dex domicilii – ontario
 Lex situs – England  Stock was characterized as immovable

property according to lex situs.

Movable v. Immovable
 Exhibition building – US and Germany considered as

interest in movable property.  English law consider it as an interest in land.  Tangible and intangible things

India
 General Clauses Act,1897 – S.3(26) - "Immovable

property" shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.  S.3(36) "Movable property" shall mean property of every description, except immovable property.  S.3 (TP Act) : " immovable property" does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass;

India
 Nachiyappa Chettiyar v. Muthu Karuppan Chettiyar,

1946.  Capacity to alienate immovable property is to be determined by applying the law of the place where the property is situated.  Indian courts don’t have jurisdiction over immovable property situated outside india, but an action in personam against the defendant within the jurisdiction on contractual right is possible.

Immovable property
 India, England, US and most of the European

countries – law of the situs.  Italy, spain, Sweden, Finland and Germany – nationality.  Convenience and expediency  Nelson v. Bridport, (1845) 8 547  “the incidence of real estate, the right of alienating or limiting it, and the course of succession to it, depends entirely on the law of the country where the estate is situated.”

Lex situs
 Entire law of the country?  Only private international law

 Indian dies leaving behind immovables in

Spain.  Under internal law of Spain A is the heir.  Under Hindu law B is the heir.  Spanish court will apply the law of nationality, i.e – Hindu law – B is the heir.  Indian court – lex situs – law of Spain – A is the heir.  Such situation Renvoi applies.

Jurisdiction
 British 

  

south Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique, 1893. Action of trespass was brought against the defendants in English court on land and mines in South Africa. English court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action on immovable properties in foreign land. Neelkant v. Vidya, 1930 AC 188. British Indian courts don’t have jurisdiction to entertain an action in respect of a mortgage of immovable property situated in foreign court.

Capacity
 Governed by the lex situs. – Bank of Africa Ltd.

v. Cohen, (1909) 2 Ch. 129.  Any restriction on foreigners – conveyance in foreign country is not valid.  US – age – 21  India – age – 18  Indian domiciled in US cannot convey any property in US at 18 – invalid.

Contracts
 If two Indians enter into a contract in India for

conveyance of a house in London.  Formaly valid if it is in accordance with – lex loci contractus.  Contractual rights can be determined in the place of courts of proper law of contract for breach of contract.

Exceptions to lex situs
 The court of equity have exercised the jurisdiction of 
   

ordering specific performance of contracts relating to foreign land whenever the defendant has been present within the jurisdiction. Archer v. Preston. Visit to England he was asked to specific perform the contract – land in Ireland. The British court of equity always act in personam. Fraud Fiduciary relation – land situated outside – trust – trustee is within the jurisdiction of the court.

India
 Proviso to - S. 16 of CPC  Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or

compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant, may where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

India
 Mahadev v. Ramchandra, 1922 Bom.  Even if the land is situated outside India, if the relief

can be obtained in Indian through the personal obedience of the defendant, court have jurisdiction.  The court will not pass a decree if it cannot be effectively enforced in India by personal obedience.

Assignment of tangible movables
 Transfer inter vivos – sale, gift, pledge etc.  Lex domicilii – oldest theory

 Situs can be shifted any time. – abandoned.
 Sale of a ship in voyage  Domicile of the assignor or Lex actus (actual situs) of

the assignment.

Lex situs
 Most favoured theory  In Re Anzinani, (1930) 1 Ch. 407  The law of the country were the movable is situate.  Supporters – Savigny, Westlake, Dicey, Foote, Schminthoff and Wolf.  Pledges or lien – lex situs  Theory breaks down only when the goods are in transit.

Proper law theory
 lex actus – transfer of movables – transfer has the

most real connection.  Apply to goods in transit.

Transfer
 Contractual questions – proper law of contract.  Proprietary questions – if there is a dispute between parties

as to the title of the property, which law should govern the matter?  Inglish v. Usherwood, (1801)  English merchant purchased goods from Russia and shipped to England – goods in transit – Merchant became bankrupt – Russian asked the Captain of the ship to return the goods – valid according to Russian law – goods will be passed to the consignee when the goods passed to the merchant – not in accordance with English law.  English court held that Russian law should be applied.

Gifts
 Which law applies to gifts?  Lex situs – proper law  Cheshire – proper law theory  Morris – lex situs  Donations Mortis causa – S.191 of the Indian

Succession Act, 1925.  English law – lex situs  In Re Korvine’s Trusts, (1921) 1 Ch.343. – domiciled in soviet Union, resident in England made gift of his movables in England. – gift was void according to lex domicilii – English court applied lex situs.

Commercial transactions
 Lex situs is practically not applicable.  Shifting situs

 Lex domicilii has been rejected in commercial

transactions.  Law of the locus where the ship is to unload.  Ship in High Seas or aircraft – law of the flag.

Thank you

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008

22

Dr. KD Raju Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur kdraju@rgsoipl.iitkgp.ernet.in

Law of Succession
 Civil law countries – law of nationality at the time of

death.  India – personal laws  Succession to immovables – lex situs – Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharati, AIR 1974 SC 1764.  Succession Movables – lex domicilli – Umyal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi AIR 1945 FC 25.  If a person leaving behind immovable property in England – internal law

Indian succession Act, 1925
 S.5 - Succession to the immovable property in India of

a person deceased shall be regulated by the law of India, wherever such person may have had his domicile at the time of his death.  (2) Succession to the movable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which such person had his domicile at the time of his death.

Administrators
 Functions under English law: 1. collection of assets

of the deceased.  2. payment of debts  3. distribution of residue among the heirs.

Civil law v. common law
 Civil law countries – will is considered as a public

document.  Common law countries – as a secret.  Administration and succession are two different things in English law.  English law – no one can distribute the property without the authorization of the court. - probate of the will  Obtaining letters of administration is mandatory.

will
 In testamentary successions, the court will uphold

wishes of the testator as far as possible.  Deceased made a will and appointed an executor – executor may obtain the probate of the will.  Deceased made a will and not appointed an executor – court may appoint an executor.  When the deceased had died intestate, then the court may grant letters of administration.

Presence of the property
 English courts usually exercise jurisdiction in granting

administration if the property is in England.  Choice of law:  In the Goods of Hill, (1870) 2 P&D. 89  ‘court of the country of the domicile of the deceased makes a grant to a party who then comes to England and satisfies the court about his authorization to administer the property.

Administration
 Administration of the estate of the deceased person is

governed by lex fori.  Administrator is liable to account.  Make payment of debts.

Indian law
 Indian Succession Act, 1925  Indian law follows English law

 S.270 - basis of jurisdiction – 1. at the time of death

the deceased had a fixed pace of abode.  2. If movable or immovable property of the deceased is within the jurisdiction of the district judge.

Indian law
 Indian courts have taken the view that a grant of probate

can be made of a will executed abroad by a person who is neither domiciled here nor a national of India, if the testator left some immovable or movable property in India.  Katyankutty Padaji v. Gaurikutty, 1953 TC 352.  Indian courts didn’t have jurisdiction to appoint an administrator on the basis that the deceased was domiciled in India.

Personal laws
 Probate is only compulsory to Christians.  S.218 lays down that if heirs do not apply for administration

of the property the creditor of the deceased can apply for administration of the estate.  Domicile or nationality of the deceased is immaterial.  The heir will be decided according to whether the deceased is a Hindu or a Muslim.

Indian succession Act
 218(a) - If the deceased has left a widow,

administration shall be granted to the widow.  If the widow is a lunatic or committed adultery or remarried – not eligible.  The husband surviving his wife has the same right of administration of her estate as the widow has in respect of the estate of her husband.

domicile
 Where the deceased has left property in India,  letters of administration shall be granted according to

the foregoing rules,  notwithstanding that he had his domicile in a country in which the law relating to testate and intestate succession differs from the law of India.

Indian law
 If the property is in India – lex fori  S.222 – a probate shall be granted to an executor

appointed by the will.  If will is probated outside India and the property is in India, Indian court will give administration of the property to the foreign administrator or his representative in India.

Intangible property
 Trademark – succession to intangible property created

by a stature is to be governed by the law of the country where it was created.  Blackwood & Sons v. AN Parasuram, AIR 1959 Mad 410.

Immovable property
 Succession to immovable property is by lex situs of

immovable property.  Vishvanathan v. syed Abdul Wazid, 1963 SC 1.

will
 Personal laws apply to different communities.  Testamentary succession – succession Act applies to all

communities except Muslims.  5 (2) Succession to the moveable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which such person had his domicile at the time of his death.  Application of this provision has excluded if the deceased is a Hindu, Mohammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain.

Pvt.intn.law
 Indian succession Act provisions won’t affect the pvt.

Int.n.law principles.  If a foreign court determines succession of an Indian who leaving behind immovable's in India and the foreign court applies any law other than his personal law, Indian courts will not recognize the foreign decree.

The Hague Convention 1989
 The Hague Convention on La Applicable to the Succession to the

Estates of Deceased Persons 1989.  Applies to the succession of the estates of deceased persons except testamentary and matrimonial property rights.  Succession is governed by the law of the country where the deceased habitually resides for the last 5 years.  More connected with the place – nationality.

Hague convention 1989
 A person can designate any system of law applicable to

the succession of his estate.  The law means not the conflict of law.  A state may only refuse to apply the applicable law under the Convention if the applicable rules are manifestly contrary to public policy.  Only Netherlands implemented this Convention.

Hague Convention 1961
 The Hague Convention on the Conflict of Laws

Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions 1961.  India not implemented  Testamentary disposition is to be regarded as valid if it complies with the internal law.  Public policy – non implementation

UNIDROIT convention 1973
 UNIDROIT International Convention Providing a Uniform

Law on the Form of an International Will 1973.  Objective is to the international validity of a will.  UK implemented this convention by enacting the Justice Act 1982.  India has not implemented this convention

Will convention
 A single person to designate to deal with all

international wills.  The will has to be in writing  It will be valid wherever it is made, assets located, nationality, domicile or residence of the testator.  A will signed in presence of signatories will be valid in all contracting states.

Thank you

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008

24

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008

7

PVT Int. Law

Tort in private international law
 The traditional approach starts with lex loci and

considers the site of conduct.  Lex loci Commissi Theory – civil liability arising out of a wrong derives its birth from the law of the place. – Philips v. Eire, (1870) L.R. 4 Q.B. 225.  Obligatio theory –Holmes . J.

Theories  Lex loci delicti commissi governs,

 Indian standing in the border pushes a rock which rolls down and dashes against the car parked in the Pakistan side.

 Cheshire - tort occurred in both countries
 Civil law countries -Where the tort has been committed.

 3possible solutions

 1. there should be of the place where the act commenced . – Holmes. J.
 2. the tort may be deemed to be complete

in the country where the law is most favourble to the plaintiff. - Cook  3. tort is completed in the country where the harm ensues. - Beale  In the case of defamation the harm is in the nature of non-physical. Lex loci commissi  Damage in more than one country.

 Bata v. Bata, (1948) W.N. 366.

 Defamatory letters ere written by the defendant in Zurich.
 Posted in London and harm to reputation.

 CL – held that the tort of libel was completed in London.
 It is not necessary that the cause of action fully occurred within the jurisdiction – P.C in Distillers Co. (Bio-chemicals) Ltd. v.

Thompson,(1971) 1 All E.R. 694.
Tort

 Morris – proper law – most significant connection which the chain of acts.  US proper law theory has been accepted – Babcock v. Jackson (1963) 12 NY.  England – Boys v. Chaplin, (1968) 2 QB 1.

Proper law or Social enviro nment theory

 Action in personam – action on tort is act in personam – mere presence of the defendant within its jurisdiction is sufficient.
 When the tort is complete it is actionable

in England.

 Locus delicti – even if the damage was occurred in another place.  Phillips v. Eire, (1870) LR 6 QB 1.  Tow conditions: 1. the wrong must be of such a character that it would have been

actionable if committed in England.  2. The act must not have been justifiable by the law of the place where it was done. Choice of  The wrong complained of must be wrong law not only under the lex loci delicti commissi but also under the lex fori.

Locus delicti
 First rule – the wrong alleged would have been     

actionable in England when it is committed. Monroe (George) Ltd. v. American Cynamid and Chemical Corporation, (1944) 1 KB 432. Medicine manufactured in US. Act or omission happened where? – South Wales No warning with regard to the use of expectant mother in the first three months of pregnancy. Cause of action takes where the mother purchased the drug.

Second rule
 Not justifiable according to the lex loci delicti.  Philips v. Eire  Machado v. Fontes  Machado sued fontes in English court for a libel published

in Brazil.  Brazilian law – not actionable in civil law but actionable in criminal proceedings.  Main defence was that the publication was not actionable in Brazil.  Two conditions are satisfied and actionable in England.

Boys v. Chaplin
 Both of them were Her Majesty’s Armed Forces were


 

stationed in Malta. Plaintiff suffered injury due to road accident on account of the negligence of the defendant. Both of them returned to England and the plaintiff sued the defendant. The act was actionable under English as well as Maltese law. No compensation for pain and sufferings under Maltese law.

Double actionability rule
 A wrongful act committed out of England is actionable

in England only if it is actionable in lex loci delicti commissi and hold that Mechado v. Fontes was wrongly decided.

Maritime and aerial torts
 Tots committed in High Seas.  E.g: assault by a member of the crew on another or on    

a passenger or torts committed by a passenger . Governed by the flag of the ship. If the tort is committed in an Indian ship, Indian law will apply. But if the action for tort is initiated in England, The rule in Boys v. Chaplin would apply. Action for negligence outside the ship will be dealt by the maritime law of England.

Aerial torts
 On board on aircraft.  No law dealing with aerial torts.

 Law of the country where the aircraft is registered
 Locus delicti  If the aircraft is above the High Seas, the general

maritime law will be applied or English law will be applied.  Warsaw Convention  Chicago Convention

India
 CPC – ‘where the wrong was done’  Within the jurisdiction of the court were the

defendant resides or carries on business.  Cause of action arise.  Wrongful act has taken place or where its effect are experienced.

Restitution
 To prevent unjust enrichment.  Contract that has failed.

 Whenever there are fiduciary duties of which a breach

has been committed.  Restitution is ordered by a court whenever a person has derived an unjustified advantage which it is his duty to restore.  Indian Contract Act 1872, SS. 64 and 65.

Restitution
 There is no statutory provisions with regard to



restitutionary claims arising outside India. There is no provision on limitation as to foreign claims. England law applied is proper law of the obligation. If it is related with a contract - applying ‘proper law of contract.’ If an obligation arising in connection with a transaction relating to immovable property is usually determined by lex citus.

Restitution
 In other cases – determination by applying the law of


the place where the enrichment occurs. The present practice in England is that the law applied where the obligation have the closest and most real connection. Baring Bips & Co Ltd v. Cunningham District Council (1997) CLC 108. UK – proper law of the contract In the case of Insurance – law of insurance.

India
 Indian Contract Act, 1872 – if a person avoids a

voidable contract, he must restore any benefit he has received under the contract he has avoided or compensate the other party.  Void – return of all advantages.

Trusts
 England – Recognition of Trusts Act Passed in 1987 to


 

give effects to the Hague Conference on Private International Law Applicable to Trusts and n their Recognition, 1986. Hague Convention Trust created inter-vivos Trusts for specified purposes charitable trusts Created by judicial decisions

Trusts
 Oral trusts and trusts created by statutes are outside


 

the purview of the convention. Choice of law – by the settler. Substantive law – not conflict of laws If the country where there is no law of trust – governed according to the law applicable in the absence of choice. Not opposed to public policy.

Absence of express provision
 A.7 - Where no applicable law has been chosen, a trust


   

shall be governed by the law with which it is most closely connected. In ascertaining the law with which a trust is most closely connected reference shall be made in particular to – a) the place of administration of the trust designated by the settlor; b) the situs of the assets of the trust; c) the place of residence or business of the trustee; d) the objects of the trust and the places where they are to be fulfilled.

Choice of law
 Proper law of contract – most real connection. – Arab


 


Monetary Fund v. Hashim [1996]. Place of residence Place of business Where the enrichment occurred Where the obligation arises Place where the property situate – lex citus

Thank you

KDR/IIT KGP/RGSOIPL/-2008

25

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful