LCI Learning
Master the Art of Contract Drafting & Corporate Legal Work with Adv Navodit Mehra. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

When there is absence of intention to reside in foreign coun

 

when there is absence of intention to reside in foreign country permanently,jurisdiction of Indian court is not barred

 
 Taking the facts of the case as they are, it would not be possible for us to hold that the respondent had ever given up his domicile of origin. However, his pleadings clearly demonstrate that till 1997 his domicile was in India and it prevailed until he acquired citizenship and domicile of Sweden and immediately within less than a year of acquisition of citizenship of Sweden he left that country and abandoned first domicile of his choice. Thereafter, he shifted to Australia. There also he could not continue for long time and he was required to shift out of Australia. He also stayed in India for two years. It is on the basis of these facts, we find force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the parties never gave up their domicile of origin though they changed their place of residence from one country to another and they acquired citizenship of Sweden. It cannot be said the physical fact of shifting to Australia was ever accompanied by the required state of mind. It is fully established that an intention to reside for ever in a country where one has taken up his residence is an essential constituent element for the existence of domicile in that country. The domicile of origin is received by operation of law at birth and for acquisition of domicile of choice one of the necessary condition is intention to remain there permanently. The domicile of origin is retained and cannot be divested until the acquisition of domicile of choice. By merely leaving once own country, even permanently, one will not, in the eye of law lose his domicile until he acquires a new one. This aspect was discussed in the Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Ram Narain (supra) where it was pointed out that if a person leaves country of his origin with intention of never returning to it again, neverthless his domicile of origin adheres to him until he actually settles with the requisite intention to some other country. The ap


 0 Replies


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register