TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee equivalent to Euros 11,37,866.30 at the rate as may be applicable on the date of such deposit within eight weeks. 3. The respondent raised indents upon the appellant for supply of certain goods on the terms and conditions contained therein. The same were accepted by the appellant. The documents were to be sent through the respondent's bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. Pursuant thereto, the respondent manufactured and supplied the material. The documents were forwarded by the respondent through its bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. The documents included the invoices. 4. There is no dispute that the respondent delivered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that if Dresdner Bank also files a suit on the said invoices, it would result in the appellant being required to pay the amount twice over. 7. The defence is moon shine. It is common ground that the value of the invoices has not been paid by the appellant either to the respondent or to the Dresdner Bank. The Dresdner Bank has not even called upon the appellant to make payment in respect of the promissory notes. The promissory notes have in fact been deposited in Court. The promissory notes when submitted by Dresdner Bank through the Union Bank of India for collection were dishonoured by non-payment. The suit is based on the original cause of action viz. the invoices. The appellant is entitled to do so. In fact a revised payment s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a question of fact. There is a presumption that unless the contrary is proved, the general law of a foreign country is the same as Indian law and that the mere fact that the contract was entered into with reference to the law of another country will be immaterial. 11. Mr. Wagle, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent invited my attention to a judgment delivered by me in Malaysian International vs. Mega Safe Deposit Vaults Pvt. Ltd. 2006(3) Bom.C.R. 109, where I had dealt with this issue. 12. I have overcome my embarrassment in following my own judgment, as in that case I merely followed the judgment of the Privy Council in (Parchim) 1918 A.C. 157 and did not arrive at that finding in principle on my own. I held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esumption referred to is itself quite reasonable." The observations that follow do not either dilute or qualify the ratio in the sentence emphasised. They merely provide the rationale for the presumption. Nor do I read the ratio of this judgment as being confined to cases in England alone. Their Lordships continued thus : "An investigation of the commercial codes of foreign countries would probably show that they differ from English commercial law rather in detail or in the inference to be drawn from particular facts than in substance or principle. For example, in countries where the civil law is more directly the basis of modern law than it is in this country, somewhat great....