Whether Indian courts can recognize judgment and order of conviction of a foreign Court?

We now propose to consider the second question i.e. question No. (1)(b). We are of the considered view that, though the judgment and order of conviction of a foreign Court for the offence committed in India can be noticed/looked into and recognized by judicial and quasi judicial authorities in India, while exercising their judicial and quasi judicial powers, it cannot be said that the same will be ipso factobinding on such Courts and authorities. If we hold that such a judgment of a foreign Court for an offence committed in that country, is binding on the Courts and authorities in India while exercising their judicial and quasi judicial powers, it will amount to directly or indirectly enforcing the judgment of the foreign Court. What is the effect of such order of conviction, would depend upon variety of factors such as, nature of the proceedings, purpose for which the said order of conviction needs to be taken into consideration, nature of conviction and effect thereof on the proceedings, nature of consequences of the ultimate decision to be taken in the said proceedings, are some of the factors which will have to be taken into consideration while deciding as to how much and what weightage has to be given to such judgment and order of conviction. We are of the considered view that, no hard and fast rule can be laid for that purpose. The Courts and authorities, while exercising their judicial and quasi judicial powers will have to take a call on the facts and circumstances of each case and take a decision as to what is the effect of such judgment and order of conviction. The question No. (1)(b) is answered accordingly.

In the High Court of Bombay

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

(Before B.R. Gavai, K.R. Shriram and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ.)

Prabodh K. Mehta  v. Charuben K. Mehta 

First Appeal No. 922 of 2013

In

Charity Application No. 10 of 2013

Decided on March 1, 2018,

Citation:2018 SCC online Bom 302

Print Page

When objection U/S 34 of Arbitration Act is not tenable before Indian court?

We are thus of the view that by Clause 28, the parties chose to
exclude the application of Part I to the Arbitration proceedings between
them by choosing London as the venue for Arbitration and by making
English law applicable to Arbitration, as observed earlier. It is too well
settled by now that where the parties choose a juridical seat of
Arbitration outside India and provide that the law which governs
Arbitration will be a law other than Indian law, part I of the Act would not
have any application and, therefore, the award debtor would not be
entitled to challenge the award by raising objections under Section 34

before a Court in India. A Court in India could not have jurisdiction to
entertain such objections under Section 34 in such a case.
 As a matter of fact the mere choosing of the juridical seat of
Arbitration attracts the law applicable to such location. In other words it
would not be necessary to specify which law would apply to the
Arbitration proceedings, since the law of the particular country would
apply ipso jure. The following passage from Redfern and Hunter on
International Arbitration contains the following explication of the issue:-
“It is also sometimes said that parties have
selected the procedural law that will govern
their arbitration, by providing for arbitration in
a particular country. This is too elliptical and,
as an English court itself held more recently in
Breas of Doune Wind Farm it does not always
hold true. What the parties have done is to
choose a place of arbitration in a particular
country. That choice brings with it submission
to the laws of that country, including any
mandatory provisions of its law on arbitration.
To say that the parties have ‘chosen’ that
particular law to govern the arbitration is
rather like saying that an English woman who
takes her car to France has ‘chosen’ French
traffic law, which will oblige her to drive on the
right-hand side of the road, to give priority to
vehicles approaching from the right, and
generally to obey traffic laws to which she may
not be accustomed. But it would be an odd
use of language to say this notional motorist
had opted for ‘French traffic law’. What she
has done is to choose to go to France. The
applicability of French law then follows
automatically. It is not a matter of choice.
Parties may well choose a particular place of
arbitration precisely because its lex arbitri is

one which they find attractive. Nevertheless,
once a place of arbitration has been chosen, it
brings with it its own law. If that law contains
provisions that are mandatory so far as
arbitration are concerned, those provisions
must be obeyed. It is not a matter of choice
any more than the notional motorist is free to
choose which local traffic laws to obey and
which to disregard.”
 In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Gujarat High
Court holding that Ashapura’s objections under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act are tenable before a Court in India that is the Court at
Jam-Khambalia, Gujarat is contrary to law. The proceedings under
Section 34, which occurs in Part I, are liable to be dismissed as
untenable. The Civil Appeals of Eitzen are liable to succeed and are,
therefore, allowed. The judgment of the Bombay High Court dated
03.12.2015 enforcing the Foreign Award under Part II of the Arbitration
Act is correct and liable to be upheld.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 5131-5133 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 2210-2212/2011)
EITZEN BULK A/S  V ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD. & ANR.
Dated;MAY 13, 2016

S. A. BOBDE, J.

Print Page

Whether Indian courts should recognize certificate of civil status is issued by Swiss Confederation to prove bride marital status?

 Ext.P5 certificate of civil status is issued by the

Swiss Confederation, to prove the bride marital status,


attested by a notary in terms of Hague Convention,

abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public

documents (Apostille Convention).        India has declared its

accession to above Convention on 05/10/1961.                The

Switzerland has not objected to accession of India as

Contracting State under article 12 of the Convention. Thus,

the Indian Court and the Public Authorities are bound to

recognise such certification of the notaries of the foreign

country.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

 Dated:  27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

                                  WP(C).No. 35928 of 2015 (M)
                                      

            ABDUL MANAF.P.A.,
Vs

        STATE OF KERALA,
           

Print Page

Whether Indian court can recognize a notarial act which took place before a notary public at Singapore?

 A question, therefore, arises as to whether this Court can recognize a notarial act which took place before a notary public at Singapore. This is required to be considered first, even before this Court can go into the genuineness or authenticity of the document. The answer to this question is clearly provided under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which reads as follows:

"14. Reciprocal arrangements for recognition of notarial acts done by foreign notaries - If the Central Government is satisfied that by law or practice of any country or place outside India, the notarial acts done by notaries within India are recognized for all or any limited purposes in that country or place, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the notarial acts lawfully done by notaries within such country or place shall be recognized within India for all purposes, or as the case may be, for such limited purposes as may be specified in the notification."

 None of the judgments, which have been referred to or relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, takes into consideration or even dwells upon the above quoted provision of the Notaries Act, 1952, which is a Central Legislation that has come into force at a latter point of time - much after the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Now, so far as section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, it provides that the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated. However, it must be held that to the extent it dwells upon presumption as to powers of attorney, executed and authenticated by a Notary Public, the provision of section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be read in isolation to the specific provision as contained under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, insofar as notarial acts done by foreign notaries are concerned. For an Indian Court to recognise a notarial act done by a notary public at Singapore, it is imperative for the Central Government to issue a notification under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, declaring that the notarial acts lawfully done by notaries in Singapore shall be recognised within India for all purposes, or as the case may be, for such limited purposes as may be specified in the notification. In other words, unilateral recognition by an Indian Court of a notarial act done by a foreign notary is impermissible in the absence of reciprocity of recognition as contemplated under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. The reason is, if it is otherwise, the sanctity of the sovereign power being exercised by an Indian Court will be compromised.

 Since there is clearly no such notification of the Central Government in the Official Gazette granting recognition to the notarial acts done by the notary public of Singapore, this Court is unable to take any judicial recognition of the document which has been handed over before this Court by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

C.A. Nos. 786 of 2014, 49 of 2015 and C.P. No. 1122 of 2014

Decided On: 12.02.2015

Appellants: In Re: Rei Agro Ltd. and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Biswanath Somadder, J.

Citation: AIR2015Cal54, (2015)1CALLT613(HC)

Print Page