English

Principle: Foreign Judgment Binds the Parties and is Conclusive Unless It is Obtained by Fraud. Facts: a Obtains a Judgment from the Us Court by Producing Fake Documents.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

Principle: Foreign judgment binds the parties and is conclusive unless it is obtained by fraud.  

Facts: A obtains a judgment from the US court by producing fake documents. 

Options

  • New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts 

  • Judgment can be enforced in US 

  • Judgment can be enforced in India 

  • A new suit can not be filed in India on the same facts 

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts 

Explanation:

The principle and the fact are clear. The principal says the foreign judgment binds the parties unless they have been obtained by fraud. The fact is that A has received foreign judgment, but fraudulently.  Therefore, it is not binding on the parties. So, a new suit can be filed.   

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Civil Suit can be filed where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arises.

Facts: An agreement is signed and executed in New Delhi between A and B for the supply of goods wherein B is to supply goods to be delivered at New Dehli to a client of A.  A carries on business at Haryana and B carries on Business in UP. The civil suit by 'B‘ for payment of consideration can be filed against 'A‘ at 


Principle: Nothing is an offense by reason of any harm it may cause to another person if it is done in good faith and for the benefit of that person even without that person‘s consent.

Facts: A is attacked by a Lion and Lion drags him while he is crying for help. B, a passer-by picks up A‘s gun in good faith and fires at Lion which injures A. B has never used the gun before. 


When the consent to the contract is caused by coercion, then under Section 19, the contract will be considered as:


Mark the best option:
Principles:

  1. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
  2. A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.

Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Will Monty be guilty of criminal intimidation?


This tort occurs most often in society.


What are the remedies provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 are intended to regulate the activities of whom...


Injuria sine damnum stands for.


Defamation means


PRINCIPLE Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is to defame that person.

FACTS In a community, there is a custom of stealing shoes of the bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by 'Y'. 'A' announced that 'Z' has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at 'Z' with great surprise. 'Z' felt very ashamed.


Principle: A Master is liable for the acts of his Servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.

A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On January 1, 2010, C called up A's taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×