1. Sorin Group vs Neeraj Garg: Defendant did not pay plaintiff suit filed.

Defendant
alleged Italian law but did not prove hence Indian law applied with respect to payment
not being barred by limitation.
2. Shankaran Govindan vs Lakshmi: Krishnan died in England with property with a
sister and brother who were minors. Plaintiff filed suit to acquire property. Since He
lived in UK law of Uk applied and since defendant were not contesting the claim the
court granted in favour of plaintiff.
3. Mayan vs Owners and Parties: Ship did not provide full cargo at Calcutta, clause in
bill of lading for Singapore court to adjudicate, Indian court had jurisdiction because
cause of action arose there and substantial connections were with India and not
Singapore.
4. Dinesh Thankur vs Sonali Thankur: US citizens married by HMA with PIO and OCI
in India husband filed divorce using power of attorney through third person. Wife filed
proceeding in US husband sought anti suit but court found that US appropriate forum
as no grave injustice would happen to husband as he too was living there.
5. Brook vs brook: Hum apke hai kaun but this was denied because despite lex loci
celebrationis of Denmark determining law it was contrary to law in England.
6. Radwan vs radwan: Egypt man married English woman in France in Egyptian
consulate, then divorced first wife then moved to England acquiring domicile then
second wife filed divorce. Court held personal law decides validity also presumption of
validity due to 20 years of cohab. Real and substantial connection found.
7. Indyka vs Indyka: Husband divorce first wife in Czechoslovakia, wife Czech domi
husband English domi. Then husband married eng woman but when divorce was filed
by her he contested invalidity of second marriage on account of first marriage not being
validly dissolved. Court held first divorce validly done, court used functional approach,
only exception when marriage in England and one party is English.
8. Chetti vs chetti: Hindu Chad went to UK married English woman had child then came
back and married hindu woman first wife filed divorce. Chad said not valid marriage
as he follows Hinduism, court held being hindu not valid reason to deny a validly
celebrated marriage, court not bound by Indian law. Chad sad
9. Cheni vs Cheni: Parties were uncle and niece got married in Cairo under jewish laws
which permitted potential polygamy if no child from first marriage. But child happened
so marriage converted to monogamy, then became domicile of England, wife filed
divorce on cruelty, consanguinity. Since polygamy did not happen hence not against
 English law, also marriage valid as under their personal laws which allowed
consanguinity. Chirstendom allows for consanguineous marriage as seen in Lutheran
churches.
10. Baindall vs Baindall: Englishman became Indian then married hindu woman under
hindu laws which allow polygamy, then he married English girl who filed divorce.
Court held that nigga are you serious and said English policy is against potentially
polygamous marriage hence first marriage valid second not valid. Chad sad
11. R Sridharan vs Presiding Officer: Indian citizen married woman in US as per hindu
rites, subsequently wife filed for divorce on cruelty in India. Chad said no Us has
jurisdiction court said Bitch please since marriage under hindu law governed by Indian
courts.
12. Jessie Grant Khambatta vs Macherji Khambatta: Jessie Scottish married muslim in
india as per Scottish law then converted and domiciled in india. Husband divorced
through triple talaq, jessie married mancherji, jessie after 10 years wanted to nullify
marriage because first marriage divorce was invalid. Court held since she converted
and followed islam along with domicile of india she was governed by muslim law hence
dissolution valid no nullity granted. Bitch please you chose islam Christendom hates
you.
13. Pranav Engandiyur vs Gram Panchayat: Hindu married Phillipino who is also
petitioner, Chad registrar refused valid marriage under hindu law. Court said Nigga
STFU you cannot decide validity if prima facie it look as marriage happened under
personal law.
14. Joyce Sumathi vs Robert The Dick enson: Joyce married Robert in Baharain under
FMA he then left and never come back for 5.5 years. She then filed divorce court denied
divorce because no proof of marriage given under section 17 of SMA . High Court said
STFU to lower Court because even if not solemnised she can claim matrimonial relief
under SMA, divorce petition upheld as she stayed in india for 3 years after marriage it
was her place and jurisdiction is with india.
15. Gracy vs PA Mathiri: Appellant married according to English law solemnisation also
according to FMA but no witnesss for certificate only notary hence section 24 of FMA
not satisfied hence property maintain status quo until disposal of suit.
16. Noor Jehan Begum vs Eugene Tiscenko: Parties married in Berlin one is polish the
other Russian then noor jehan converted to islam but chad refused so she filed for
 divorce and went to stay in Calcutta while deciding jurisdiction and domicile matters
since chad is Russian so wife will also be Russian according old concepts.
17. Vincent Joseph vs Jacintha: Christian marriage solemnised outside India by Indian
citizens, section 2 indian divorce act allows divorce even if marriage solemnised outside
india.
18. Satya v Teja: Satya the liar married teja then went to Us stayed in Nevada for requisite
period of 90 days to file suit of divorce, ex parte judgement given in favor of the satya.
Brought for enforcement and execution in india. Court said Bitch Please the decree is
acquired fraudulently through misrepresentation hence not valid under section 13 CPC.
19. Anoop Beniwal v Jagbir Beniwal: Couple married under hindu law in 1981 moved to
Uk where husband filed divorce citing irretrievable breakdown. Wife got petition went
to india then came back to contest in UK. Court found no breach of Section 13 19 24
HMA and no breach of CPC 13 as the couple were habitual residents of UK so it has
jurisdiction and its decree enforeceble.
20. Arunima Naveen Takiar vs Naveen: Both married as per hindu rights wife joined
husband in UK later husband filed divorce in UK. Wife filed RCR stating Indian law
governs marriage. Court found plaintiff unable to contest in UK although UK has
jurisidiction but court gave anti suit injunction against UK court.
21. Surinder Kaur v Harbax Singh: Married then moved to England where son born,
husband caused almost death of wife so jailed but used his connection to take child
from wife and run to india. Wife brought suit against husband for custody stating that
UK court should decide because the child was british citizen and habitually resident
there. Court said yes
22. Jaqueline v Surinder Pal: Wife German husband Indian married in India moved to
Germany child born then divorce filed child abducted court found habitual residence to
be Germany, intimate contact with Germany, german citizen knows german hence back
to Germany.
23. Dhanwanti Joshi vs Madhav Unde: Married in Us stayed for 10 there child taken by
wife at 35 days then no contact with father for 12 years so child intimate contact with
mother and in India so jurisdiction with India.
24. V Ravi Chandran v UOI: Us Couple child in US then wife divorce joint custody wife
took child without permit to India court held US jurisdiction due to intimate contact.
Principle of comity also applied.
25. Surya Vardhan vs State of Tamil Nadu: Husband UK citizen wife Indian married in
Chennai wife got UK citizenship 2 daughter born in UK, wife filed divorce under HMA
custody sought no order given. Husband filed for court to become ward and brought
decree to India court held comity principle and granted enforcement of decree as well
as for the best interest of children and intimate contact with UK.
26. Baby Manji vs UOI: Surrogacy discussed by court child born of surrogacy left in india
grandmother petitioned for identifying legal status. Court redirected to commission
under 2005 act.
27. Jan Balaz vs Anand Muncipality: German couple got Indian surrogate mother when
child born birth certificate gave mother as Indian surrogate and father as german. When
german law refused to recognise surrogacy the child became stateless but when matter
in Indian court citizenship given according to one parent being Indian hence child
Indian.
28. Delhi Cloth Mill: Plaintiff ran from Pak to India defendant received payments but was
confisticated by Pak Custodian when suit filed in India court ruled defendant not liable
as pak govt confistication gave it vested rights which not contrary to Indian public
policy hence no suit for return of payment.
29. Taprogge Geselschaft MBH Case: German company included non complete clause
against IAEC which is against public policy of india and Indian Contract Act Sec 27.
Hence rejected by court.
30. NTPC v Singer Company: Arbitration clause mentioned seat to be London arbitration
to be done by ICC. NTPC challenged jurisdiction of London Arbitration due to a
dispute. Court held that the contract was substantially governed by Indian law and only
procedural aspects could be done under English Law.
31. Kumarina Investment vs Digital Media: Plaintiff Israeli registered in cyprus breach
of contract to be governed by English law and London courts. Contested during dispute
the jurisdiction of Indian tribunal. Tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction but party
autonomy is respected and hence England will be the right jurisdiction.
32. Sona Devi vs Anil Kumar: Even if accident happened in Nepal the Indian courts have
jurisdiction because the people were Indian citizens, vehicle registered in india, service
provided in india. Only applicable under double actionability.
33. Bank of Baroda vs Kotak Mahindra: In order to respect comity and avoid abuse of
the process of law, and execution decree will follow period of limitation of the court
 from where the decree originated. Hence it cannot be given the right to apply period of
limitation of india.
34. Seema Kapoor v Deepak Kapoor: Seema ran away with child with fake passport to
India CBI investigated since not party to hague it could thus it lacked domestic laws to
resolve the matter. Hence Law commission to formulate report. Ultimatly child sent
back to UK to be placed in foster care.
35. Y Narsimha Rao vs Y Venkata Lakshmi: Both married in India then moved to US
then husband filed divorce in absence got decree where wife only sent reply to written
statement. He married second woman. Wife filed bigamy, court held that foreign decree
not upheld because there was no natural justice and the irretrievable breakdown not
provided in HMA hence decree not valid.