ORAL JUDGMENT

On 10th June, 1994 an article was published in the Daily Edition of the Economic Times. The article, according to the plaintiff, contained statements which were defamatory. On 8th September, 1994, the plaintiff instituted proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division in the U.K. for seeking damages for libel and an injunction in respect of the publication of the defamatory article. Service of those proceedings was effected on Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar, who according to the plaintiff, was the resident representative of the defendant in Great Britain and authorized to accept service of process. The defendant did not enter appearance in the proceedings in London. On 5th June, 1995, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff’s Solicitor, Mr. Peter Edward Marrow, in the firm of Tanners in order to seek a direction that service effected upon Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar was effective service upon the defendant and that a judgment be entered, in default of defence, with damages to be assessed.

2. Four orders came to be passed by the High Court of Justice on 21st September, 1995, 27th September, 1995, 16th June, 1998 and 11th May, 1999. By the first of the orders delivered on 21st September, 1995, judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed. Since the issue which is raised in these proceedings would turn on the text of the judgment, it would be necessary to extract the entirety of the judgment:

“JUDGMENT AND ORDER UPON:

(a) That Plaintiffs Summons herein dated 28th July, 1995 being served upon Messrs Vijay Sharma, Solicitors for Mr. C. Umesh; and

(b) A copy of the said Summons being sent by airmail to the registered office of India of the Defendant not less than 14 days prior to the hearing of the said Summons; and

(c) A further copy of the said Summons being sent by way of Notification only to Messrs Franks Charlesly & Co. by post or document exchange.

In accordance with the order of Master Murray dated 20th July, 1995.

AND UPON the Plaintiff abandoning his claim to injunctive relief.

AND UPON hearing the Plaintiff by their Counsel, the Defendant not attending and a representative from Messrs Vijay Sharma observing.

IT IS ORDERED:4

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff with damages to be assessed.

2. The costs of this application and of the action be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.”

3. Thereupon, on 27th November, 1995, a further judgment was entered adjudging thereby that the defendant would be liable to pay to the plaintiff damages to be assessed. The second judgment reads thus“

PURSUANT to the order of this Court dated the 21st day of September 1995 it is HEREBY ADJUDGED that the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff damages to be assessed.”

4. On 16th June, 1998, damages were assessed against the defendant in the amount of Pound Sterling 32,500. The order reads thus –

“UPON HEARING Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant not attending IT IS ORDERED:-

1. Damages assessed at £32,500.00 with liberty to enter Judgment for such sum;

2. The Defendant to pay the costs of the assessment and the costs of the action, such costs to be taxed if not agreed; the Taxation to be on an indemnity basis;

3. Certificate for Counsel for today. Attendance of Country Solicitors to be allowed on Taxation.”

5. On 11th May, 1999, judgment was entered against the defendant recording that in pursuance of the judgment dated 27th November, 1995, damages in the amount of £32,500.00 and costs assessed at £66,039.99 had been assessed and taxed. The defendant was called upon to pay to the plaintiff a sum of £98,539.99.

6. The decree of the High Court of Justice in the Queen’s Bench Division dated 11th May, 1999 has been set into execution. Leave has been sought of the court under the Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

7. The defence to the application for execution is that: (i) the judgment of the Court in the U.K. was without jurisdiction in the absence of service