#Letters Patent

The Calcutta High Court held that a suit cannot proceed under Clause 12 of the 1865 Letters Patent unless the plaint establishes a territorial nexus with the court’s jurisdiction, and therefore ordered the leave to be withdrawn and the case remitted to a competent court. This clarifies that litigants must file such actions in courts that have a direct connection to the cause of action, affecting parties seeking relief against central authorities under the Letters Patent.

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.

The Bombay High Court holds that even with prior leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, a suit for immovable property located outside Greater Bombay cannot proceed in Mumbai courts after transfer to the City Civil Court. This reaffirms Section 20 of the CPC as the decisive test for territorial jurisdiction, overriding procedural convenience granted under Letters Patent - a vital clarification for property litigants and practitioners navigating inter-court transfers.

Bombay High Court holds that a suit for partition of immovable property is a suit for land under Clause XII of the Letters Patent; failure to obtain leave before filing mandates rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Bombay High Court clarifies guardianship appointment for incapacitated adults, permitting financial management of encumbered assets for medical welfare. Key principles established.

Madras High Court refuses to condone 301-day delay in filing writ appeal, holding that bureaucratic inertia is not sufficient cause under Limitation Act.