Question

Principle: Foreign judgment binds the parties and is conclusive unless it is obtained by fraud.
Facts: A obtains judgment from US court by producing fake documents.

• A. New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts
• B. Judgment can be enforced in US
• C. Judgment can be enforced in India
• D. New suit can not be filed in India on same facts

Hint:

Fraudulent judgments cannot be enforced, and a new suit can be filed in the relevant jurisdiction.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

According to the principle, a foreign judgment is binding, but if the judgment is obtained fraudulently, it may not be enforceable. In this case, A obtained the judgment by producing fake documents, which indicates the judgment was obtained by fraud. This makes the judgment voidable in India. As the fraud was identified, a new suit can be filed in India on the same facts.
Thus, the correct answer is (A).
Option (B) is incorrect as a fraudulent judgment cannot be enforced in any jurisdiction. Option (C) is incorrect because the fraud makes the judgment unenforceable. Option (D) is incorrect because the fraudulent nature allows for a new suit in India.

Answer 2

The question tests what happens to a foreign judgment once it turns out to have been obtained through fraud. Let's assess each option.

1. New suit can be filed in India on the same facts: The principle says a foreign judgment loses its conclusive, binding character when it was obtained by fraud. Since A got the US judgment using fake documents, that judgment stops binding the parties, which opens the door to a fresh suit in India on the same facts.
2. Judgment can be enforced in US: A judgment procured through fabricated documents is unsound at its root, and fraud unravels its enforceability wherever it is relied upon, including in the country that passed it. This option ignores the effect the principle gives to fraud.
3. Judgment can be enforced in India: The whole point of the principle is that a foreign judgment does not bind the parties once fraud is shown. Treating this fraudulent judgment as enforceable in India runs directly against that rule.
4. New suit cannot be filed in India on the same facts: This would be true if the US judgment were conclusive, but the principle strips it of that conclusive effect precisely because of the fraud, so a new suit is not barred.

Because fraud takes away the binding, conclusive effect the foreign judgment would otherwise have, the parties are free to litigate the same facts afresh in an Indian court.

So the correct answer is a new suit can be filed in India on the same facts.

Answer 3

The key question here is what fraud does to a foreign judgment's binding effect, not whether the judgment exists at all. Each wrong option misses that specific effect in a different way.

1. New suit can be filed in India on the same facts: This option correctly identifies that fraud strips the judgment of the conclusive, binding character it would otherwise have, which is precisely what reopens the matter to fresh litigation.
2. Judgment can be enforced in US: This option treats the judgment as sound simply because it was passed by a US court, ignoring that the judgment's own foundation, the documents behind it, was fabricated. Fraud undermines enforceability wherever the judgment is relied upon, not only outside the country that passed it.
3. Judgment can be enforced in India: This option makes the same mistake in the Indian context, treating the judgment as binding despite the very fraud that the principle says removes its conclusive effect.
4. New suit cannot be filed in India on the same facts: This option assumes the judgment retains its ordinary conclusive effect, which would bar a fresh suit, but that assumption is exactly what the fraud exception in the principle displaces.

Because the fraud in obtaining the judgment removes the conclusiveness the principle would otherwise grant it, the parties remain free to litigate the same facts again in India.

Therefore, the correct answer is a new suit can be filed in India on the same facts.