UNIT 1

Narashima Rao v VenkataLakshmi 1991

Couple got married in Tirupati on Feb 27 1975 and separated in 1978. The couple resided
together in India for a duration of 4 to 5 months after that she had left to her parents home, while
her husband had gone to USA and finally got placed in Charity Hospital in Louisiana, New
Orleans.

After he settled there, wife also joined him in New Orleans. Later on husband alone moved to
Chicago, while wife left back to India.

Thus last place for matrimonial home was New Orleans. Later on husband moved to Missouri
and resided there for 90 days, obtained domicile and finally filed for divorce in Missouri.

Wife promptly filed a reply petition stating that she was not submitting to the jurisdiction of
Missouri Court.

In spite of that, Missouri Court granted an exparte decree on grounds of ‘irretrievable

breakdown of marriage.’ After the grant of divorce Narashima Rao underwent a second
marriage, which left the first wife filing for both restitution of marriage as well as a case for
bigamy, in India.

The same was dismissed by magistrate court based on the foreign decree. An appeal was
made before High Court which reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Supreme Court upheld the judgment of High Court and observed as follows:

► No Jurisdiction as judgment not delivered from a court having jurisdiction based on place of
last matrimonial residence nor had the wife submitted to the jurisdiction of Missouri Court which
granted the divorce decree.

► Decree obtained by fraud as the husband resided for mere 90 days in Missouri just to obtain
domicile certificate and apply for divorce. He had no intention to reside there permanently.

► Under Hindu Law ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ is not a ground for divorce and thus
this foreign decree is a breach of matrimonial laws of India.

► A mere Photostat instead of a certified copy as laid down in S.86 of Indian Evidence Act does
not make a valid documentary evidence of the foreign divorce decree.

► Thus, in this case, the second marriage was valid in the eyes of law of United States but an
instance of Bigamy in the eyes of Indian Law

Ogden V Ogden 1908

A Englishwoman married a Frenchman P.

P was a minor under French Laws, he was only 19 years old. Under French Laws he must get
his parents consent to be married upto the age of 25 years, beyond which he is deemed a
major.

P got married in England without reading the banns and without getting his parents’ consent.
Thus, the French Court held the marriage to be void.

Later on, the Englishwoman got married to another man Ogden. Only after the marriage Ogden
came to know that his wife was already married to P. Thus, Ogden went to court and filed a suit
for nullity of marriage on grounds of bigamy.

England Court held that the first to P was a valid marriage in the eyes of English law, thereby
rendering the second marriage to Ogden bigamous making it null and void.

Satya v Tej Singh 1975

Couple had two years of married life in India, after that husband went to USA to study for four
years and then got a job in Utah.

He refused to return to India and filed for divorce in Nevada.

Exparte divorce was granted to him by the Nevada Court.

His wife in India filed a maintenance suit.When the husband defended that he had obtained
divorce in Nevada Court, the Indian court refused to recognise this decree.

The Indian Court pointed out that he had fraudulently obtained the decree as he was not a
resident of Nevada State.

The trial court ordered maintenance payment in favour of the wife.

This trial court ruling was overruled by High Court in appeal, holding that domicile of the wife
follows domicile of the husband.

But Supreme Court reversed High Court order as it felt that Tej Singh had obtained the decree
fraudulently by representing that he was domiciled in Nevada, while he had no intention of
settling there permanently.

Frontier Bank Ltd V Prakashwati Bhal

Prakashwati deposited Rs.2050/- in Frontier Bank in Dera Ismail Khan.

When communal disturbances broke out in 1947, she had asked the bank to transfer their
account to New Delhi. The bank failed to comply with her wishes and thus a case was filed in
Delhi.

One of the key question was whether the Delhi Court had jurisdiction.
The Punjab and Haryana H.C. held that u/S.20 the Court had jurisdiction since one of the
branches of the bank is located in Delhi.

It further went on to observe that cause of action arose in Pakistan but Explanation II to S.20
clarifies that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in
India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate
office, at such place.

Thus in this case it was held that the Bank was carrying on business at Delhi and consequently
it is within the competence of the civil court of Delhi to dispose the case.

UNIT - 2

Re Duke of Wellington

A British testator domiciled in England under his will gave lands situated in Spain to the person
who on his death would become the Duke of Wellington and Ciudad Rodrigo.

The testator was killed in action in 1943. At that time he was unmarried.

In 1813 the Spanish Dukedom of Ciudad Rodrigo was given to the first Duke of Wellington and
his male and female issues, while the British Dukedom was limited in tail male.

In 1943, after the death of the testator, the two Dukedoms became separated - to the Spanish
Dukedom the sister of the testator succeeded and to the English Dukedom his uncle
succeeded.

The testator had made two wills : under the Spanish will he bequeathed his Spanish estate to
the person who would become Duke of Wellington and under the English will also he
bequeathed all his residue properties to the same person.

Since after his death in 1943 the two dukedoms had separated because of his dying unmarried
and because of the requirement that English Dukedom could go only to the male heir, the
question of interpretation of Spanish will came before the English court.

After holding that the devolution to Spanish estate would be governed by the lex situs, i.e. the
Spanish law, the court proceeded to examine whether the Spanish law would accept the renvoi.
Since it found that it would not, the English internal was applied.

Rahimtoola V Nizam of Hyderabad

Nizam of Hyderabad had £10,00,000/- in a bank in London.

Fearing police action by Indian Government, the finance minister of Hyderabad Moin,
persuaded High Commissioner of Pakistan Rahimtoola to take this entire amount into his name
and custody.

Later Nizam filed for recovery of the same amount from Rahimtoola.

It was made amply clear that Rahimtoola accepted the amount only on the permission of the
Pakistani Foreign Minister, while Moin had not even got permission from the Nizam.
 The House of Lords, in 1957 held that since Rahimtoola took money as agent of Pakistan and
not in his individual capacity, Pakistan can claim jurisdictional immunity and retain the amount.

This judgment was severely criticized and it was pointed out that in this instance Rahimtoola
had stepped into the shoes of a trustee. The funds remained frozen ever since.

Nearly, 60 odd years later the case got revived because of certain quirky facts.

In 2013, Pakistan sued the National Westminster Bank, the custodian of the Nizam's fund.

This revived the old suit as Pakistan's filing of case against the bank meant the country waiving
off sovereign immunity it invoked 65 years ago.

Pakistan argued that India's claim on the Hyderabad Nizam's fund was barred by limitation
while, India countered the argument saying it was Pakistan which had blocked proceedings in
the case.

The UK court concurred with India. In conclusion, the UK court dismissed Pakistan claim on
Hyderabad Nizam's fund and recognised the claim of India and the grandsons of Nizam Mir
Osman Ali Khan.

In October 2019, the court left it to the Princes and India to divide the money among
themselves.

Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation V Manorama 1966

In this case the plaintiff was the widow of a pilot who manned the crashed plane belonging to
Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation.

The widow claimed that the crash happened due to the negligence in aircraft maintenance by
the defendant. The Nepali Government without prejudice offered Rs.35,000/- as compensation,
but the widow refused it and filed this case.

In this case, Nepal claimed jurisdictional immunity along with a written statement based on the
merits of the case.

It was held that, there was nothing to show that the Nepal Government had chosen to waive of
jurisdictional immunity.

Thus it was held that Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation was not falling within the court’s
jurisdiction.

In this case, it was held by the Indian courts that:

No impeachment against a foreign sovereign in respect of his person or property. Can not
implead a sovereign even indirectly. Can not have a proceeding with the object of seizing or
detaining property in possession or control of foreign sovereign.
 No action against agent of foreign state where it is purported to be done by it’s ag No suit
against department of State – but if doing commercial operations / business then not falling
within the protective umbrella.

Even if the sovereign is not the defendant, he can claim immunity on basis of certificate or
affidavit to effect that defendant is department of State and not a corporation, by the respective
foreign ambassador. Here effect of incorporation under the foreign law will be considered by the
court on materials presented.

In cases where the subject matter of the suit is title to property, then claim to immunity only after
court is satisfied that the claim to title is not illusory or founded on a manifestly defective title.

Commissioner of IT, AP V Mir Usman Ali Khan Bahadur

Mir Usman Ali Khan Bahadur, who was the erstwhile Ruler of Hyderabad State prior
to its integration with the Union of India was the assessee in this case.

He filed returns of income for the assessment years of 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-
55 claiming various exemptions and deductions.

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed some and refused some to her
exemptions and deductions.
The question was if Nizam of Hyderabad prior to 1950 of January 26, claim immunity from tax
under international law.

Supreme Court held that, he was only a ruler under British Crown, thus he never had
international immunity and thus made liable for tax as he was no longer a sovereign after
26/1/19

Angelina V Joseph 1917

Plaintiff was a German residing in India. With the permission of Government of India, she filed a
suit for judicial separation against her husband who was residing in Germany.

At that point in time, England was at war with Germany.

Plaintiff, via foreign office managed to send summons to High Court of England to be serviced
upon the defendant.

In this case it was held that if alien enemy is used in India, they will have a right of defence.

Saxby V Foulton 1909

Playing roulette is not unlawful in Monte Carlo. Since it is a well known law, there is no need to
prove the same.

► Court may take judicial notice if foreign law contents are much similar to English Law. For
example, English men carry English law with them to colonies as far as possible, so Courts can
take judicial notice of the same.
► While hearing appeals from colonies or dominions such as Scotland.

► No need to prove foreign law when it is admitted, as was held in Moulis V Owen case.

► When both parties request Court to decide matter without proof of foreign law especially
when the issue is related to interpretation of foreign law, as was observed in Beatty v Beatty
1924.

► In very rare cases the court will apply foreign law without proof as was observed in Re Cohn
case.

Warter V Warter

In this case the question was whether second marriage of Mrs. Tayloe was valid or not. She had
obtained an Indian divorce with a waiting period of 6 months under the Indian Divorce Act.

This Act lays down in S.16 that decree of dissolution is to be nisi – when high court decision is
not in confirmation with district court decision for a minimum period of 6 months.

During this period, any person can approach H.C. to show any collusion which occurred based
on which the court may either make decree absolute or reverse the decree nisi.

Here the domicile of the divorced parties is immaterial for present purpose of determining status
and capacity of party to remarry.

The English court recognises the ban on re-marriage for a short duration under Indian law.

Luther V Sagor 1921

British citizen had timber factory in Soviet Union, which was nationalised.

So the British man had left USSR and returned back to England. Later, he entered an
agreement with Russian Nationalised Company to buy timber in UK from USSR.

When the timber reached UK, he claimed that those timber were his property. UK held that even
though the Russian government was not recognised at the time of nationalisation of the factory,
it was later given de facto recognition which is applicable retrospectively, thus validating the
nationalisation itself.

The Christina

During the Spanish Civil War, all ships were requisitioned. One such ship was docked in
England and Spanish Consul had boarded it and taken possession.

English court refused to exercise jurisdiction saying nationalisation law applies.

Baccus SRL v Servicio Nacional Del Trigo

The defendant organisation carried on business from Spain and was sued in England for
damages for breach of a commercial contract.
An appearance was entered by their solicitors in London and a consent order made for security
for the organisation’s costs. These steps were taken on the instructions of the head of the
organisation, Mr Cavero, who was a senior civil servant, without his Minister of Agriculture
knowing of them.

Eighteen months after the writ was served, steps were taken to stay proceedings on the ground
that the organisation was a department of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture.

Held: (majority) The defendants were a department of the State of Spain and entitled to claim
immunity. There could be no submission to the jurisdiction unless it were made by a person with
knowledge of the right to be waived and with the authority of the foreign sovereign.

Kahan v Pakistan Federation

State immunity can only be lost by a submission to the jurisdiction when it was invoked, and not
by an earlier act.

A foreign State is immune even if by a contract it agrees to submit to the jurisdiction or British
Courts.

Porter v Freudenburg

Held, that an alien enemy is a person, of whatever nationality, who voluntarily resides or carries
on business in enemy territory, or in territory in enemy occupation. An alien enemy is not
entitled to sue, but may be sued.

Kaufman v. Gerson 1904

G had taken money entrusted to him by K.

K threatened to prosecute G unless G's wife would make good the loss out of her own property.

G's wife agreed to do so to save her husband's honour.

The agreement was therefore voidable.

G's wife was not bound by her promise which was entered into under duress.

UNIT 4

Cammell v Sewell

FACTS
A vessel carrying timber was insured with the plaintiffs was wrecked off the Norwegian coast.
The master of the vessel, acting in accord with Norwegian law, sold the timber to an innocent
Norwegian purchaser who subsequently shipped the timber to England and sold it in turn to the
defendants. Although at English law the vessel's master would have no such authority to deal
with cargo, the defendant's title was held to be unimpeachable. The Court of Exchequer
Chamber was also of the opinion that a good title having been acquired in Norway, the
circumstance that the timber later came into the English jurisdiction could in no way affect such
title

Principle
The validity of a transfer of a tangible movable, and its effect on the proprietary rights of parties
interested in it, is stated by Dicey and MorrisQs governed by the law of the country where the
movable is at the time of the transfer (the lex situs). Any title so acquired will be recognised as
valid in the English Conflict of Laws, although the goods are later removed from the situs, until
displaced by a new title acquired in accordance with the law of the country to which they are
removed. After an uncertain beginning these principles were expressly approved by the majority
of the Court of Exohequer Chamber in Cammell v Se~ell,~ adopting the formulation of Pollock
C.B. in the lower court that "if personal property is disposed of in a manner binding according to
the law of the country where it is, that disposition is binding everywhere".

Liverpool Marine Credit Co v Hunter

FACTS

The defendant who was a ship owner, sent a mortgaged ship to Louisiana knowing that
louisiana do not accept mortgages of ships where the plaintiff claimed that the
defendant has committed a positive crime.

Principle

If, in examining a judgment, as we are at liberty to do, we find on the face of it that a
course of procedure has been adopted which is inconsistent with natural justice, then
this Court will not give effect to the decisions and to the authority which it would
otherwise be perfectly willing to recognise.

It sometimes happens, for instance, that foreign Courts proceed to judgment in the
absence of the party against whom proceedings are taken, or after inadequate notice of
trial.

The judgment of a foreign Court could be reviewed, not because it had made a mistake
in law, but because it had acted without jurisdiction

Therefore the purpose of equity is to supplement the common law and not to undermine
common law by creating exceptions. Even though the neighborhood principle in the
common law tort of negligence might have more appropriately been developed in equity
rather than in common law, the function of equity should not be to be to judge as in to
what form of action does and does not constitutes a justifiable behavior , instead equity
should only be concerned with what form of behavior/action gives rise to an
unconscionable abuse of the rights and powers vested under common law.

Campbell Connelly & Co Ltd v Noble.

A composer composed popular tune and he owned both English and USA copyright. HE
assigned it to a company as ‘all rights in all countries’. American copyright consists of two
periods – First 28 years plus renewal for another 28 years if author is alive after the first set, of
28 years.

In England that is not the case. English law was applied as the proper law for assignment and
thus it was held that renewed rights also vests in the company as per the English contract
construction.

Keppy v Selwyn

it was held that law to be applied is the law of the court which is administering the trust fund.

Re Indian Speci Bank

Share holder had transferred shares to many transferees and application was made to company
to register their names. But before the transfer was effected in the registry, the company
became insolvent. In this case, it was held that as far as share holder and company are
concerned, ownership continues to vest in the share holder.

Cochrane v Moore
This case involved a transfer was by way of mere oral gift in London. Based on this English man
claimed title to horses in Paris. Under English law no title will pass on. In this case, French law
was not pleaded, by application of lex situs theory, the title actually passes on to the done.
Under French law possession is not essential.

Liverpool Marine Credit Company v Hunter

A, an Englishman mortgaged a ship to B, another English man. The mortgage was made when
the ship was in New Orleans. P creditor of A got it attached for debt. Under New Orleans law
mortgage of ship is invalid. B gave bond to P, to prevent the ship from being sold in auction.
Later B filed a suit for injunction to prevent P from enforcing the bond. It was held that as per lex
situs of the ship the bond was enforceable.
Ewing v Orr Ewing
In this case, it was held that, the English administrator will be concerned
with foreign assets only if deceased died domiciled in England, as only then,
he can obtain grant of administration in court of that country.

New York Breweries v A.G

In this case it was held that, if foreign administrator meddles with English
assets of deceased, he is liable as an inter meddler – no privileges as
administrator will be accorded to him.
Viswanath v Abdul Wazid,
it was made very clear that succession to
immovable property situated in India is to be determined by lex situs i.e.
Indian law.

Sankaran v Lakshmi Barathi

English immovable property, it was held that the same is to be determined by lex situs i.e.
English Law.