Skip to main content

Section 86 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - Suits against foreign Rulers, Ambassadors and Envoys.

 Section 86 CPC Description

(1) No [* * * *]1 foreign State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with 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 2[a foreign State] 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 3[the foreign State] may be sued, but it shall to be given, unless it appears to the Central Government that 3[the foreign State].


(a) has instituted a suit in the Court against the person desiring to sue 4[it], or


(b) 5[itself] 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 4[it] by this section.


6[(3) 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 foreign State.]


(4) The proceeding provisions of this section shall apply in relation to -


7[(a) any Ruler of a foreign State;]


8[(aa)] any ambassador or Envoy of a foreign State ;


(b) any High Commissioner of a Commonwealth country; and


(c) any such member of the staff 9[of the foreign State or the staff or retinue of the 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.


10[as they apply in relation to a foreign State].


7[(5) the following persons shall not be arrested under this Code, namely : -


(a) any ruler of a foreign State;


(b) any Ambassador or Envoy of a foreign State;


(c) any High Commissioner of a Commonwealth country;


(d) any such member of the staff of the foreign State or the staff 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.


(6) Where a request is made to the Central Government for the grant of any consent referred to in sub-section (1), the Central Government shall, before refusing to accede to the request in whole or in part, give to the person making the request a reasonable opportunity of being heard.]


1. The words "Ruler of a" omitted by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


2. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, for "a Ruler" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


3. S ubs. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, for "the Ruler" (w.e.f. 1 -2-1977).


4. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, for "him" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


5. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, for "himself (w.e.f. 1- 2-1977).


6. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, for sub-section (3) (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


7. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


8. Cl. (a) re-lettered as cl. (aa) by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


9. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, for "or retinue of the Ruler, Ambassador" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


10. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 29, for "as they apply in relation to the Ruler of a foreign State" (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more