Lalji Raja & Sons v. Hansraj Nathu Ram

It corrects the most quoted sentence in this module. Sirdar Gurdyal Singh said a decree pronounced in absentem by a court to whose jurisdiction the defendant never submitted is by international law an absolute nullity. Lalji Raja shows that the proposition is too wide, and supplies the accurate formulation.

The decree in question was a decree of the Bankura court in West Bengal. The argument built on Gurdyal Singh was that it was a nullity for want of jurisdiction over the defendant.

Such a decree is an absolute nullity only if the local legislature has not conferred jurisdiction on the domestic courts over foreigners, either generally or in specified circumstances. Where it has, the language of absolute nullity is not apposite, and it is more appropriate to say that the decree is not executable in courts outside the country.

On the facts the argument failed at an earlier point: a decree of the Bankura court could not be a foreign decree under either the old or the new definition, so the whole Gurdyal Singh argument was misplaced.

Step one — read the Privy Council's own qualification. The Board had itself said the judgment debtor is under no obligation to obey and the decree is a mere nullity in the courts of every nation except, when authorised by special local legislation, in the country of the forum by which it was pronounced. The exception was always there.

Step two — take the exception seriously. Section 20(c) of the Code does confer jurisdiction where the cause of action arises in India. A legislature may lawfully give its courts reach over absent foreigners.

Step three — restate the proposition accurately. A judgment given without personal jurisdiction is not void everywhere: it is good at home and unenforceable abroad. The reach of a State's courts over absent defendants is a matter for that State's legislature, subject only to the refusal of other States to enforce the result.

Step four — and check the definition first. A foreign court under s. 2(5) is a court situate outside India and not established or continued by the authority of the Central Government; a foreign judgment under s. 2(6) is the judgment of such a court. Both limbs must be satisfied, and a court in West Bengal satisfies neither.

It opens: Explain jurisdiction in the international sense — always as the second case, after Sirdar Gurdyal Singh.

Make the correction the point of the answer. Quote the nullity proposition, then show that it is a statement about enforceability abroad, not about validity at home. That distinction is the whole of this head.

Take the definitional lesson too. Before arguing about foreign judgments, check that the judgment is foreign: the two limbs of s. 2(5) dispose of a surprising number of problems.

It does not decide that a decree from a court with statutory reach over foreigners will be enforced elsewhere; it decides only that calling it a nullity is wrong.