All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Direction: Read the following passage careful... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:
Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,—
  • Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction;
  • Where it has not been given on the merits of the case;
  • Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;
  • Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
  • Where it has been obtained by fraud;
  • Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.  In Brijlal Ramjidas v. Govindram
Gordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.
Q. Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?
  • a)
    The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. B's argument is not up for consideration.
  • b)
    Mr. B's objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.
  • c)
    The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. B's objection is invalid.
  • d)
    The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. B's objection is not admissible.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questio...
According to the correct legal logic, Mr. B's argument is legitimate since a foreign judgment must be issued by a court with sufficient authority before it may be enforced in India. A foreign judgment that has not been rendered by a court with the necessary authority is not conclusive under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. Given that Mr. B is an Indian national and the legal issue in question originated outside of the US, the US court may not be seen as having jurisdiction in this matter. As a result, Mr. A's ruling from the US court might not be enforceable in India. The correct response is therefore option B.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questio...
Explanation:

Competent Jurisdiction:
- In the given scenario, Mr. B challenges the validity of the foreign judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority.
- According to Section 13 of CPC, a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive if it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
- Therefore, Mr. B's objection that the judgment was not issued by a court with appropriate authority is legitimate.

Validity of the Objection:
- The objection raised by Mr. B is crucial in determining the enforceability of the foreign judgment in India.
- If the foreign judgment was not issued by a court with competent jurisdiction, it fails to meet one of the essential criteria for enforcement in India.
- Consequently, Mr. B's objection is valid and can potentially prevent the enforcement of the foreign judgment in India.

Conclusion:
- In conclusion, the objection raised by Mr. B regarding the lack of competent jurisdiction in the issuance of the foreign judgment is accurate and holds significance in the context of enforcing foreign judgments in India.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. Y is found guilty after Mr. X filed a lawsuit against him in a French court. Later, Mr. X attempts to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. Y challenges the judgments enforceability on the grounds that it was obtained fraudulently. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.In which of the following cases will a foreign judgment not be regarded as conclusive and enforceable in India under Section 13 of the CPC?

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Court's latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection.Few would disagree with the Court's view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary.The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame.Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitution's Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speaker's order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislator's case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Q. Some MLAs have submitted their resignations to the Speaker. However, the Speaker did not take any call on the resignation of the above persons. Aggrieved by the fact that their resignations were not accepted, and with the impending trust vote being inevitable, most of the above persons approached the Supreme Court by way of a Writ Petition. Based on the author's reasoning and essence of the passage, does the petition deserve to be entertained?

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.There are two significant aspects to the Supreme Courts latest decision on the Speaker as the adjudicating authority under the anti-defection law. The first is that Parliament should replace the Speaker with a "permanent tribunal" or external mechanism to render quick and impartial decisions on questions of defection. Few would disagree with the Courts view that initial fears and doubts about whether Speakers would be impartial had come true. The second is its extraordinary ruling that the reference by another Bench, in 2016, of a key question to a Constitution Bench was itself unnecessary. The question awaiting determination by a larger Bench is whether courts have the power to direct Speakers to decide petitions seeking disqualification within a fixed time frame. Secure in the belief that no court would question the delay in disposal of disqualification matters as long as the matter was pending before a Constitution Bench, Speakers have been wilfully failing to act as per law.The reference to a larger Bench, in 2016 in S.A. Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah was based on the landmark judgment in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) which upheld the validity of the Constitutions Tenth Schedule, or the anti-defection law. This verdict had also made the Speakers order subject to judicial review on limited grounds. Finding several pending complaints before Speakers, the Bench, in 2016, decided that it was time for an authoritative verdict on whether Speakers can be directed to dispose of defection questions within a time frame. While fixing an outer limit of three months for Speakers to act on disqualification petitions, in the present case, Justice R.F. Nariman given four weeks to the Manipur Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification question in a legislators case. He also held that the reference was made on a wrong premise. As "failure to exercise jurisdiction" is a recognised stage at which the court can now intervene, the court has thus opened a window for judicial intervention in cases in which Speakers refuse to act. This augurs well for the enforcement of the law against defection in letter and spirit.Some MLAs have submitted their resignations to the Speaker. However, the Speaker did not take any call on the resignation of the above persons. Aggrieved by the fact that their resignations were not accepted, and with the impending trust vote being inevitable, most of the above persons approached the Supreme Court by way of a Writ Petition. Based on the authors reasoning and essence of the passage, does the petition deserve to be entertained?

Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code deals with Doctrine of Res Sub-Judice. ‘Res’ means matter or litigation and Sub-Judice means pending (under judgment). Conjoining the two, it implies that the rule of Res Sub-Judice relates to a matter which is pending judicial enquiry. In other words, this rule applies where a matter is already pending before a competent court for the purpose of adjudication.Section 10 of CPC deals with the stay of civil suits. Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code defines “ Stay of Suit: as- No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. In simple words Section 10 declares that no Court should proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties and the Court before which the previously instituted suit is pending is competent to grant the relief sought.The Rule applies to trial of a suit and not the institution thereof. It also does not preclude a Court from passing interim orders, such as, grant of injunction or stay, appointment of receiver. It, however, applies to appeals and revisions. The object of the rule contained in Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject-matter and the same relief. The provisions of Section 10 of the code do not strictly apply, a civil court has inherent power under Section 151 of the code to stay a suit to achieve the ends of justice. Similarly, a Court has inherent power to consolidate different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same. Section 10 also provides that there is no bar on the power of an Indian Court to try a subsequently instituted suit if the previously instituted suit is pending in a foreign Court.Q. Which of the following statements is false in relation to the above passage in order to apply doctrine of Res Sub-Judice?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Before enforcing a foreign judgment or decree, the party enforcing it must ensure that the foreign judgment or decree must not fall under the prohibited cases of CPC. If the foreign judgment or decree falls under any of these tests, it will not be regarded as conclusive and hence not enforceable in India. Under Section 13 of CPC, there are six cases when a foreign judgment shall not be conclusive. It states that 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 except,— Where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; Where it has not been given on the merits of the case; Where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; Where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; Where it has been obtained by fraud; Were it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. In Brijlal Ramjidas v. GovindramGordhandas Seksaria, Supreme Court held that Section 13 speaks not only of “Judgment” but “any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon”. The word ‘any’ clearly shows that all the adjudicative parts of the judgment are equally conclusive.Q.Mr. A, a US citizen, brings a lawsuit in a US court against Mr. B, an Indian citizen, and wins against Mr. B for a dispute that originated in India. Mr. A later tries to have the ruling enforced in India. Mr. B challenges the validity of the judgment on the grounds that it was not issued by a court with the necessary authority. Which of the following legal justifications is accurate?a)The US court has competent jurisdiction, hence Mr. Bs argument is not up for consideration.b)Mr. Bs objection is legitimate since a foreign decision must be issued by a court with appropriate authority in order for it to be enforced in India.c)The ruling was acquired by Mr. A, a US citizen, hence Mr. Bs objection is invalid.d)The ruling was reached based on the merits of the case, hence Mr. Bs objection is not admissible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup