Jurisdiction

slp
 [Link]
[Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
[Link]
 [Link]
[Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
Respondents-in-Special-Leave-Petition

pending suits
 [Link]
Comptition-2016-Semifinalists-Applicants

Cause of Action
 [Link]
[Link]
 cause of action ipleaders

suicide
 [Link]
[Link]
 jurisdiction can be defined as the extent to which a court of law can exercise
its authority over suits, cases, appeals and other proceedings. The rationale
behind introducing the concept of jurisdiction in law is that a court should be
able to try and adjudicate only in those matters with which it has some
connection or which falls within the territorial or pecuniary limits of its
authority.
 Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 confers jurisdiction over the civil
courts to adjudicate upon all suits of civil nature, except such suits the
cognizance of which is either expressly or implied barred. In other words
whenever the object of the proceedings is the enforcement of civil rights, a
civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit unless the cognizance
of the same is barred through a legislative instrument.
 TYPES- The subject matter of the jurisdiction: It refers to the authority
possessed by the court to try the cases related to the particular subject matter.
For example, a family court only has jurisdiction to hear the cases related to
family law.
 Territorial jurisdiction: It ascertains the court’s authority to try the cases which
arise within a certain geographical limit and which involves the people
residing in a particular geographical limit.
 In personam jurisdiction: It refers to the jurisdiction which a court has over a
natural and legal body such as a company. It is the authority which a court has
to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Extra territorial(criminal)
[Link]
[Link]

EXECUTION OF DECREE
[Link]
[Link]

Section 38 of the Code says that a decree may be executed either by the court which
passed it or by the court to which it is sent for execution. Section 37 defines the
phrase courts which passed a decree while Sections 39 to 45 provide for the transfer
for the execution of a decree by the court which passed the decree to another court,
lay down conditions for such transfer and also deal with the powers of executing
court. Therefore, all this needs to be read together.

A decree may be execute by the court which passed it or by the court to which it is
sent for execution[6]. A court which has neither passed a decree, nor a decree is
transferred for execution, cannot execute it[7]. Where the court of first instance has
ceased to exist or ceased to have jurisdiction to execute the decree, the decree can be
executed by court which at the time of making the execution application would have
jurisdiction in the matter[8].

Right to appeal is conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, although it does not
prescribe a limitation time for filing an appeal.

However, the Limitation Act, 1963, specifies the time for filing appeals. It provides
that an appeal against a decree or order can be brought before the High Court within
ninety days and before any other court within thirty days of the date of the appeal
against the decree or order.

Execution of foreign judgements

sec 44A of cpc, sec 13 cpc

sec 13(b) of cpc-

[Link]
of-foreign-judgments-comparative-guide

[Link]
3702391e24ca

Foreign Judgment not by a competent court

It is a basic fundamental principle of law that the judgment or order passed by the
court which has no jurisdiction is void. Thus, a judgment of a foreign court to be
conclusive between the parties must be a judgment pronounced by a court of
competent jurisdiction. Such judgment must be by a court competent both by law of
the state which has constituted it and in an international sense and it must have
directly adjudicated upon the matter which is pleaded as Res judicata.
In the case of R.M.V. Vellachi Achi v. R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar[9], it was
alleged by the respondent that since he was not a subject of the foreign country, and
that he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court (Singapore Court),
the decree could not be executed in India. The Appellant, in defense of this argument,
stated that the Respondent was a partner of a firm which was doing business in
Singapore and had instituted various suits in the Singapore Courts. Therefore, the
Respondent had accepted the Singapore Courts jurisdiction. The Court held that it was
the firm which had accepted the jurisdiction of the foreign Court and the Respondent,
in an individual capacity, had not accepted the jurisdiction. Thus, High Court held that
the decree against the Respondent was not executable. R.M.V. Vellachi Achi v.
R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1973 Mad. 141

In the case of Gurdas Mann v. Mohinder Singh Brar[11], the Punjab & Harayana
High Court held that an exparte judgment and decree which did not show that the
plaintiff had led evidence to prove his claim before the Court, was not executable
under Section 13(b) of the CPC since it was not passed on the merits of the claim.
Gurdas Mann v. Mohinder Singh Brar AIR 1993 P&H 92.

In the case of I & G Investment Trust v. Raja of Khalikote[13], a suit was filed under
the English Jurisdiction to avoid the consequences of the Orissa Money Lenders Act.
The Court held that the judgment was passed on an incorrect view of the international
law. The Court further observed that, although the judgment was based on the
averment in the plaint that the Indian law did not apply, however, there was no
“refusal” to recognise the local laws by the Court.[14] I & G Investment Trust v. Raja
of Khalikote AIR 1952 Cal. 508. 525 para 43 and 44.

The principle of res judicata embodied in the Code prohibits a court of competent
jurisdiction from trying a suit on a matter that has been substantially decided in a prior
suit between the same parties. Therefore, a decree or judgment passed by a superior
court of a foreign country cannot be enforced in India if it contradicts an earlier
conclusive judgment passed by a competent court in a suit between the same parties.
A foreign judgment passed by a court of a non-reciprocating country can only be
enforced by filing a new suit in India where the foreign decree is merely a piece of
evidence with persuasive value. Therefore, the judgment debtor can raise the claim of
res judicata and stay the suit at the preliminary stage.
injunction
[Link]

[Link]

lgbtq
 [Link]
[Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
[Link]

succession
 [Link]
%[Link]


Appellate provisions of cpc

Special leave petition

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., (1997) 3 SCC 443

Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Shrikant Gupta [1993 (3) ALT 59 SC]

There was an organisation firm which had its registered office in Bombay, and the
processing plant was in Mandsaur. Two of the three partners in the firm had their
living arrangements in Mandsaur though one was living in Chandigarh. Subsequently,
an agreement was executed among them for dissolving the firm. Rendering of records
of the firm was likewise mentioned on the supposed misappropriation of the assets of
the firm.
A suit was filed by one of the partners in Chandigarh. The Supreme Court had held
that the Courts at Chandigarh had no kind of jurisdiction in the issue. Courts at Bhilai
had the authority instead of considering the agreement.

For respondents- Pirthi Singh and Ors. vs Chander Bhan and Anr.

prerogative writ is also known as an extraordinary writ because it is only issued when
alternative remedies have been exhausted. Although this restriction does not extend to
the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The court has laid down a precedent for the
same.

This is known as the rule of exhaustion of remedies. The court has justified the same
in the case of Union of India v. T.R. Varma AIR 1957 SC 882 and held that the rule
of exhaustion exists so that a person is not allowed to circumvent existing statutory
proceedings by approaching the High Court under Article 226
[Link]
procedure

Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 461.

[Link]

[Link]
between-filing-an-appeal-vs-order-39-rule-4-application-in-injunctions-granted-
under-order-39-rules-1-and-2

[Link]

[Link]
divorce-spouse-bigamy-charge-ph-high-court-184934?infinitescroll=1
 [Link]
relationship-of-a-married-man-not-an-offence-under-section-377-ipc/