AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    SHRI VIKAS VIJAYKUMAR SACHDEVA v. PUJA W/O VIKAS SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER

    1 wp.2219.18.jud

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

    WRIT PETITION NO.2219 OF 2018

    Petitioner : Shri Vikas s/o Vijaykumar Sachdeva, Aged 36 years, Occupation : Service, R/o 160, Embassy Drive, Apt. 208, Fort Mill, State of South Carolina,

    United State of America.

    -- Versus -- Respondents : 1] Puja w/o Vikas Sachdeva, Aged 36 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o 203, Ananda Apartments,

    Clark Town, Nagpur - 440 004.

    2] Miss Hina Siddiqui, Aged 27 years, Occupation : Service, R/o 160 Embassy Drive, Apt. 201, Fort Mill, South Carolina (S.C.) (ON R.A.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri P.N. Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri W.T. Mathew, Advocate for Respondent No.1. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    C ORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

    DATE : 15 th JUNE, 2018.

    ORAL JUDGMENT :-

    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

    1

    02] In support of their contention, the principles of comity of Courts is required to be respected by the Courts in India. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, both are relying in their own ways on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Y. Narasimha Rao & others vs. Y. Venkatalakshmi & another - (1991) 3 SCC 451 and and of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Sumit s/o Narayanprasad Fogla vs. Sou. Shradha w/o Sumit Fogla - 2015(5) ALL MR 501. These judgments, in an elaborate manner, lay down the nitty-gritty of the principle of comity of Courts and the circumstances when a foreign judgment is treated as conclusive and binding upon the parties agitating before the Indian Courts.

    03] Upon going through these judgments, it has emerged on record that the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Courts in India will have to be decided and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it could not have been possibly decided effectively without giving the parties an opportunity to lead the evidence in the matter inasmuch as the other relevant principles including the principle of estoppel would also have to be considered for their application to the facts of the case or otherwise.

    2

    04] Accordingly, the impugned order, in my considered view, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remitted back to the Family Court for deciding the objection afresh in accordance with law.

    05] The petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court, Nagpur for deciding the objection afresh in accordance with law. The objection shall be treated as a preliminary objection as contemplated under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and it be decided in accordance with law. The parties to appears before the Family Court, Nagpur on the next date already fixed in the matter.

    06] Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.

    (S.B. SHUKRE, J.)

    *sandesh

    3

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    SHRI VIKAS VIJAYKUMAR SACHDEVA v. PUJA W/O VIKAS SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER
    (Jun 15, 2018)