<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1960 (10) TMI 105 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305817</link>
    <description>A foreign decree is conclusive only when the foreign court is competent and the decision is on the merits; voluntary appearance through counsel amounted to submission to jurisdiction, but a summary decree without adjudication of the disputed issues was not a merits decision and was not binding. The cheque issued in settlement of the partnership dispute was supported by lawful consideration, and the fact that the underlying award was oral did not defeat the claim. An unsatisfied foreign judgment does not extinguish the original cause of action, so the plaintiff could sue for the unpaid balance, with recovery limited to the amount still outstanding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2022 18:14:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (10) TMI 105 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305817</link>
      <description>A foreign decree is conclusive only when the foreign court is competent and the decision is on the merits; voluntary appearance through counsel amounted to submission to jurisdiction, but a summary decree without adjudication of the disputed issues was not a merits decision and was not binding. The cheque issued in settlement of the partnership dispute was supported by lawful consideration, and the fact that the underlying award was oral did not defeat the claim. An unsatisfied foreign judgment does not extinguish the original cause of action, so the plaintiff could sue for the unpaid balance, with recovery limited to the amount still outstanding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>