TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the foreign decree obtained in the summary suit was conclusive and binding, (ii) whether the oral award rendered the cheque unsupported by consideration, and (iii) whether the suit could be maintained on the original cause of action despite the earlier foreign judgment and partial execution.
Issue (i): whether the foreign decree obtained in the summary suit was conclusive and binding.
Analysis: A foreign judgment is conclusive only if the foreign court was competent and the decision was on the merits. Voluntary appearance through counsel and an application for leave to defend amounted to submission to jurisdiction, so the foreign court was competent. But a decree passed under the summary procedure without adjudicating the disputed issues and after refusal of leave to defend was not a decision on the merits within the meaning of the governing rule on foreign judgments.
Conclusion: The foreign decree was not binding on the defendants as a judgment on the merits, though the court was competent by reason of submission to jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): whether the oral award rendered the cheque unsupported by consideration.
Analysis: An oral award may not be enforceable under the arbitration law, but that does not make the underlying transaction illegal in itself. The cheque was issued in settlement of an admitted partnership dispute after reference to arbitration and subsequent dealings between the parties. The instrument therefore rested on lawful consideration, and the plea that it was void for want of consideration could not succeed.
Conclusion: The cheque was supported by lawful consideration and the suit could not be defeated on the ground that the award was oral.
Issue (iii): whether the suit could be maintained on the original cause of action despite the earlier foreign judgment and partial execution.
Analysis: A foreign judgment does not extinguish the original cause of action unless it is fully satisfied or the plaintiff has elected to accept it in complete discharge. Here only a nominal amount had been realised in execution, and the balance remained unpaid. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to sue for the unrecovered amount on the original claim.
Conclusion: The suit was maintainable for the balance remaining unpaid.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the decree of the court below was set aside, the plaintiff was granted recovery of the unpaid balance with interest, and the remainder of the claim stood rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A foreign decree passed in a summary proceeding without adjudication of the contested issues is not a judgment on the merits for purposes of conclusiveness, but a subsequent negotiable instrument issued in settlement of the dispute may still be enforced if supported by lawful consideration, and an unsatisfied foreign judgment does not extinguish the original cause of action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
