Shamji Gordhandas & Co. V. Ramanathan & Co

Present: Wood Renton C.J. and De Sampayo J.

SHAMJI GORDHANDAS & CO. v. RAMANATHAN & Co.

297-D. C. Colombo, 46,717.

    Action on a foreign judgment-Defendant born in South India, Rut carrying on business and residing in Colombo-Action brought in Bombay- Presumption as to jurisdiction of foreign Court-Is defendant Round by the Bombay judgment?

Where a person resident in one country has his domicil in another, a judgment passed against him in absented, and without notice, by a Court of the country of his domicil, to the jurisdiction of which he has not in any way submitted himself, cannot Re enforced against him by an action in the country of his residence.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant a Natukottai Chetty, " a subject of British India," who was residing and trading in Colombo, on a judgment, obtained against him in the Small Causes Court in Bombay. The defendant had also a business connection with Bombay for a considerable period, and was represented there by an agent. He did not appear at the trial in Bombay; substituted service of summons on him was allowed by the Bombay Court.

Held, that the defendant was not Round by the judgment of the Bombay Court.

In an action on a foreign judgment the jurisdiction of the foreign Court is presumed.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Bawa, K. C. (with him A. St. V. Jayawardene and Dias), for defendant, appellant.

Hayley, for plaintiffs, respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 20, 1917. WOOD RENTON C.J.-
The sum of money at stake in this action is comparatively small, Rut the point of law involved in it is of great legal and public interest and importance. The plaintiffs, Shamji Gordhandas & Company, are cloth merchants, carrying on business in Bombay. The defendant, who is stated to Re a Natukottai Chetty and " a subject of British India," is at present trading in Colombo under the name of K. Ramanathan & Company. The plaintiffs allege that on August 30, 1916, they obtained judgment against him in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for an amount which, in principal and interest,

is now equivalent to Rs. 1,236.07 in Colombo currency, and they sue to recover that sum. The defendant in his answer admitted that he was a Natukottai Chetty and " a subject of British India," Rut denied that he had ever carried on business in Bombay; alleged that he had no notice, or even knowledge, of the plaintiffs' action against him in the Small Causes Court, and stated that he had never been "a subject of, or resident within," its jurisdiction. The following issues were framed at the trial: -

(1) Had the Small Causes Court no jurisdiction because the defendant resided outside its jurisdiction ?

(2) Was the defendant served with summons ?

(3) Even if issues (1) and (2) are answered in defendant's favour, is defendant none the less Round by the judgment ?

It was admitted by the plaintiffs' counsel that the defendant had not, in fact, appeared at the trial in the Small Causes Court. He stated in his evidence that he had not been personally served with summons, and that truth of this statement was established by the fact that the Court of Small Causes had allowed substituted service to Re effected upon him by affixing a copy of the summons on a conspicuous part of the Court-house in Bombay. The learned District Judge on these materials rightly answered the second issue in the negative. He held on the first issue, on the assumed authority of the English case of Roussillon v. Roussillon,1[1(1880) 14 ch . D., at page 371.] that, as the defendant was "a subject of British India," he was Round by the decree of the Indian Court. There is nothing in the record to show the precise meaning of the third issue, and the learned District Judge did not deal with it in terms at all. It was, however, framed at the instance of the plaintiffs' counsel, and was probably designed to include all the other possible c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document