Private international law is the body of principles, rules, and at times, policies that

indicate how a foreign element in a legal problem or dispute should be dealt with
-Mortensen 2008

Introduction
Private International Law is the legal framework composed of
conventions, protocols, model laws, legal guides, uniform documents, case
law, practice and custom, as well as other documents and instruments,
which regulate relationships between individuals in an international context.
The common law has traditionally classified multi-state cases as giving rise
to one or more of three different issues:
1. Jurisdiction
Whether the local court, or forum, has the power to hear and
determine the case, or whether the contacts the case has with another
state or country limit or otherwise restrain the forum courts power or
willingness to decide the case
2. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
Where the case has proceeded to judgment in the other state or
country, whether that judgment can be recognised or enforced in the
forum
3. Choice of law
Even if the forum court has, and will, exercise the jurisdiction to decide
the case, whether it will decide the case in accordance with the law of
the forum (lex fori ), or in accordance with the law of the other state or
country
Is the forum or foreign law to be the law of the cause (lex causae)
that disposes of the case, and how does the forum court choose one or
the other?
This question is naturally only important if application of the forums
law is likely to give a different result to the application of the foreign
law -that is, where there is a conflict of laws

1 | Page

Relevant CPC Provisions

Section 15 -Court in which suits to be instituted
Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try
it. Here competency refers to pecuniary jurisdiction, which shall be
determined by High Court from time to time.
Objects: the main objects of the section is :
To reduce the burden of the higher Courts
Afford convenience to the parties and witnesses who may be
examined by them in such suits.
The District Judge and Sub-Ordinate Judges all have jurisdiction over all
Original Suits., cognizable by the Civil Court subject to the condition suits are
to be instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of civil courts can be divided on two basis.
1. PECUNIARY/MONETARY
2. TERRITORIAL/AREAWISE CLASSIFICATION
Pecuniary Jurisdiction
2 | Page

As per Section 15, every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest
grade competent to try it. This is a fundamental rule which means that if a
remedy is available at a lower court, the higher court must not be
approached. More specifically, this rule refers to the monetory value of the
sute. Each court is deemed competent to hear matters having a monetory
value of only certain extent. A matter that involves a monetory value higher
than what a court is competent to hear, the parties must approach a higher
court. At the same time, the parties must approach the lowest grade court
which is competent to hear the suit.
However, this rule is a rule of procedure, which is meant to avoid over
burdening of higher courts. It does not take away the jurisdiction of higher
courts to hear matter of lesser monetary value. Thus, a decree passed by a
court, which is not the lowest grade court competent to try the matter, is not
a nullity. A higher court is always competent to try a matter for which a lower
court is competent. This rule applies to the parties as it bars the parties to
approach a higher court when a lower court is competent to hear the matter.
Territorial Jurisdiction
Territorial Jurisdiction means the territory within a Court has jurisdiction. For
example, if a person A is cheated in Indore, then it makes sense to try the
matter in Indore instead of Chennai. The object of this jurisdiction to organize
the cases to provide convenient access to justice to the parties.
Section 16 - Suits to be instituted where subject-matter is situated
Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits
(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
(b) for the partition of immovable property,
(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge
upon

immovable

property,
3 | Page

(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable

property,
(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,
(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or
attachment,
shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
property

is

situated:

Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to,
immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant, may where the
relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be
instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain.
It is not clear whether the provision of this proviso applies to immovable
situate outside India. One view is that the provision does not apply to
property situated outside India.45 However, the Bombay High Court in
Mahadei v. Rarnchandra1 said that even if the Proviso to s. 16, C.P.C. is
considered to be not applicable to cases where land is situated outside India,
the English law rule relating to jurisdiction in personam applies in India if
relief can be obtained entirely through the personal obedience of the
defendant. This was a suit for mesne profits of land situated in another
country against the defendant who was amenable to the jurisdiction.

Section 17 - Suits for immovable property situated within jurisdiction of

different Courts Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation
for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different
Court, the suit my be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose
1 1922 Bom. 188
4 | Page

jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated : Provided that, in respect

of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable
by

such

Court.

Section 18 - Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of

Courts

are

uncertain

(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the

jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is
situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the
alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed
to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree
in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within
the local limits of its jurisdiction :
Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as
regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.
(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and
objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or
order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having
jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court
shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the
institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court
having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
Section 19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable
Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable
property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of
one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the

5 | Page

suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said
Courts.
Example:
Defendant

Hits

Plaintiff

------------------------> B

Madras

Delhi

Delhi <= Place of

Residence/Occurrence
Cause of action lies in Delhi, so can sue in Delhi. The defendant resides in
Madras, so can sue in Madras.
Section 20 - Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause
of action arises Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be
instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than
one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and
voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain;
or
(b)any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of
the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or
carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such
case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do
not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as
aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises

ExplanationA corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its

sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising
at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
6 | Page

Illustrations
(a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his
agent in Calcutta, buys goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the
East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in
Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where
the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business.
(b) A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi A, B and C being
together at Benaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on
demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benaras, where the
cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides,
or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the nonresident defendant objects, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of
the Court.
Patel Roadways V Parsad Trading Company 19922
Where defendant has Principal Office at one place and Sub Ordinate
office at another, and Cause of Action arose, in place where the subordinate
office is located, then the place of subordinate office where cause of action
arose is the relevant place for filing the suit and not the place where principal
office is located. Held, that, the explanation to S.20 provides an alternative
locus for corporations place of business and not an additional one.

ABC Lamnart Private Ltd V AP Agencies3

Held, the jurisdiction of Court in matter of contract will depend on the
situs of contract and Cause of Action arising through connecting factors.
2 1992 AIR 1514, 1991 SCR (3) 391
3 989 AIR 1239, 1989 SCR (2) 1
7 | Page

Further held, the parties may agree to vest jurisdiction in one of the many
competent Court and such Ouster Clause is valid if the clause is explicit ,
precise and unambiguous andnot hit by Ss. 23 and 28 of Indian Contract Act.

Section 83: When aliens may sue.Alien enemies residing in India with the permission of the Central
Government, and alien friends, may sue in any Court otherwise competent to
try the suit, as if they were citizens of India, but alien enemies residing in
India without such permission, or residing in a foreign country, shall not sue
in any such Court.
Explanation. Every person residing in a foreign country, the Government
of which is at war with India and carrying on business in that country without
a license in that behalf granted by the Central Government, shall, for the
purpose of this section, be deemed to be an alien enemy residing in a foreign
country.
In India, except the alien enemies, all others can file a suit or other
proceedings in an Indian court. The same is the position of

foreign

corporation. The law is codified and is contained in s. 83, Civil Procedure

Code. The section lays down an alien friend may sue in any Indian Court and
an alien enemy may also do so with the prior permission of the Government
of India. Explanation to s. 83 defines an alien enemy as under : "Every
person residing in a foreign country, the Government of which is at war with
India and carrying on business in that country without a licence in that behalf
granted by the Central Government, shall, for the pur-pose of this section, be
deemed to be an alien enemy residing in a foreign country." It is necessary
that India must be at war with that country.

8 | Page

In Ali Jan v. Abdul Zallil Khan4, the court said that, the term alien enemy
includes not only the citizens of enemy country but also citizens od India as
well as of neutral countries who are voluntarily resinding in the enemy
country. The test of alien enemy under Indian Law is that either a person
has his residence in enemy country or that he carries on business in enemy
country; nationality is of no consequence. The residence must be voluntarily
a prisoner of war cannot be called alien enemy.
Section 84: when foreign States may sue.A foreign State may sue in any competent Court:
Provided that the object of the suit is to enforce a private right vested in the
Ruler of such State or in any officer of such State in his public capacity.
Section 86: Suits against foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and Envoys.(1) No Ruler of a foreign State may be sues in any Court otherwise
competent to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government
certified in writing by a Secretary to that Government:
Provided that a person may, as a tenant of immovable property, sue
without such consent as aforesaid a Ruler from whom he holds or claims to
hold the property.
(2) Such consent may be given with respect to a specified suit or to several
specified suits or with respect to all suits of any specified class or classes,
and may specify, in the case of any suit or class of suits, the Court in which
the Ruler may be sued, but it shall not be given, unless it appears to the
Central Government that the Ruler-

4 1920 Lah. 4
9 | Page

(a) has instituted a suit in the Court against the person desiring to sue
him, or
(b) by himself or another, trades within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court, or
(c) is in possession of immovable property situate within those limits
and is to be sued with reference to such property or for money charged
thereon, or
(d) has expressly or impliedly waived the privilege accorded to him by
this section.
(3) No Ruler of a foreign State shall be arrested under this Code and, except
with the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a
Secretary to that Government, no decree shall be executed against the
property of any such Ruler.
(4) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply in relation to
(a) any Ambassador or Envoy of a foreign State;
(b) any High Commissioner of a Commonwealth country; and
(c) any such member of tile state or retinue of the Ruler, Ambassador
or Envoy of a foreign State or of the High Commissioner of a
Commonwealth country as the Central Government may, by general or
special order, specify in this behalf, as they apply in relation to the
Ruler of a foreign State.

10 | P a g e

In Gaekwar-Baroda State Railway v. Hafiz5, the Privy Council held the

requirement of consent under s. 86 as an important matter of policy and
therefore cannot be waived by the defendant.

5 1938 P.C. 165

11 | P a g e