Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Bombay High Court considers appeal challenging order revoking leave under Clause XII of Letters Patent in a section 9 petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Matter involves a development agreement for land at Indore and the question of territorial jurisdiction based on 'suit for land' principle.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-11-06 18:50:37
  • 134
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Whether the dispute between the parties arising from a development agreement and MOU constitutes a 'suit for land' under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, thereby requiring the section 9 petition to be filed only where the land is situated.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Clause XII
  • Letters Patent
  • suit for land
  • territorial jurisdiction
  • development agreement
  • section 9
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • possession
  • personal obligations
  • leave revocation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 28

APPEAL NO.572 OF 2013 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.720 OF 2013 IN LEAVE PETITION NO.238 OF 2013 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.799 OF 2013

2015-03-10

Mohit S. Shah, C.J., B. P. Colabawalla, J.

Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Yasmin Bhansali i/b M/s. Yasmin Bhansali and Co, for the Appellant; Mr. Hamed Kadiani a/w Mr. Yashpal Jain, Mr. Vijay Tulsiyan i/b Yashpal Jain, for the Respondent

Sumer Builders Pvt Ltd

Narendra Gorani, son of Ram Gorani

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order revoking leave under Clause XII of Letters Patent for filing section 9 petition under Arbitration Act, challenging territorial jurisdiction.

Remedy Sought

Appellant (developer) sought to set aside the revocation of leave and to have the section 9 petition heard in Bombay High Court.

Filing Reason

Dispute regarding termination of development agreement and MOU over land at Indore; respondent terminated agreement and claimed possession; appellant sought interim relief under section 9 to protect its possession and rights.

Previous Decisions

Single Judge of Bombay High Court revoked leave on ground that dispute amounted to a 'suit for land' under Clause XII, requiring filing in Indore.

Issues

Whether the dispute between the parties arising from a development agreement and MOU constitutes a 'suit for land' under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, thereby requiring the section 9 petition to be filed only where the land is situated.

Judgment Excerpts

the learned Judge held that the dispute between the parties in the proposed arbitration would amount to a “suit for land” as envisaged under Clause XII of the Letters Patent a development agreement dated 28 February 2008 registered with the Sub-registrar, Indore

Procedural History

Appellant filed section 9 petition in Bombay High Court after obtaining leave under Clause XII. Respondent challenged jurisdiction leading to revocation of leave by Single Judge's order dated 10 October 2013. Appellant filed present appeal against that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
  • Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 1865: Clause XII
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
development agreement arbitration section 9 Clause XII Letters Patent suit for land possession jurisdiction leave Indore security deposit

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Revokes Wildlife Clearance for Railway Line Project Due to Environmental Concerns. The approval granted by the NBWL was found to violate the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and lacked adequate environmental assessment. 2026-11-08 12:02:24
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Communal Violence Case — Acquittal by High Court Overturned. The High Court's acquittal was found to be based on misapprehension of evidence and failure to consider critical testimonies. 2026-11-08 12:02:16
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition murder acquittal natural justice compensation Land Acquisition burden of proof Jurisdiction limitation circumstantial evidence
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court Dismisses State's Writ Petition Against Tribunal's Order for Appointment of Exc...

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Enforcement Directorate Actions in Multiple Writ Petitions...

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction and Death Sentence in POCSO Case Due to Credible Testimon...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court's Reversal of Trial Court's Decree on Wi...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Limitation Dispute Over Civil Works Contract. The Court fou...

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Employees in Public Service — Validity of...

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Process in Forest Areas While Ensuring Compliance with Fore...

Lost Your Password?