Topic
By rejecting the writ, the Delhi High Court clarified that the proper forum for MCA investigations is the place where the substantive corporate dispute arises, reinforcing the nexus test for Article 226 jurisdiction. This guidance applies to companies facing regulatory probes across India.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a plaintiff must demonstrate genuine urgent interim relief to retain leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and to satisfy the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Absent such urgency, the court revoked the leave and ordered the suit to be re-filed in the appropriate forum, tightening compliance with pre-litigation mediation for commercial disputes.
Bombay High Court holds that the Registrar of Trade Marks qualifies as a 'Court' under Section 24 CPC, enabling transfer of rectification proceedings to be consolidated with infringement suits. This ruling streamlines adjudication by preventing parallel litigation and reinforces the contextual interpretation of 'Court' under procedural laws, impacting trademark litigants and IP practitioners.
Orissa High Court reaffirms that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, a writ petition can only be entertained if the cause of action arises within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Mere residence of the petitioner is insufficient to confer jurisdiction, reinforcing the principle of forum conveniens for constitutional remedies.
Orissa High Court rules that a deserted wife’s financial constraints and distance from court warrant transferring matrimonial proceedings to the nearest forum, ensuring access to justice. The court permitted virtual appearances and mandated timely disposal while recognizing the wife’s maintenance case under BNSS as an additional factor.