Allowed¶32

Hemann Jatia v. Amit Jatia and 12 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2025LPETN/51/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Clause XII Letters Patent leave petition; Bombay HC Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; partition suit not a 'suit for land'; Family Arrangement 2019 executed in Mumbai; 51% locked-in shares Westlife Foodworld Ltd held by Defendant companies; farmhouse at Mahapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur; land at Lonavala; Defendants 3, 8, 10, 11 resident out of India; Hemann Jatia v. Amit Jatta and Ors.; applies Tasneem Khatri v. Yunus Ilyas Khatri (Leave Petition No. 9 of 2024, decided 08.07.2024); relies on Dipika Hitendra Shah v. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah (Leave Petition (L) No. 11286 of 2024, decided 19.04.2024); Abhay Ahuja J; decision 24-06-2025; corrected per speaking-to minutes 01-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Clause XII leave granted to file the Suit against the Defendants in this Hon'ble Court; Petition made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

Hemann Jatia vs Amit Jatia and 12 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Clause XII leave granted to file the Suit against the Defendants in this Hon'ble Court; Petition made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent should be granted to the Petitioner to file a suit inter alia for partition in terms of the 2019 Family Arrangement, covering assets and properties situate partly in Mumbai and partly outside the Court's jurisdiction (farmhouse at Mahapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, and land at Lonavala), although the Suit concerns immovable property.

¶21

Court's answer

The proposed Suit, being a suit for partition of shares in properties located within and outside the jurisdiction of this Court, where part of the cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction, is not a suit for land within the meaning of Clause XII of the Letters Patent.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

With leave granted by this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the proposed suit.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.; order dated 24 June 2025, corrected as per speaking-to minutes dated 1 July 2025) - Leave Petition No. 51 of 2025 in Suit (L) No. 18449 of 2025 (Hemann Jatia v. Amit Jatta and Ors.). The Petitioner sought leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to sue inter alia for partition in terms of a Family Arrangement executed in Mumbai in 2019, the assets including Defendants Nos. 12 and 13's 51% locked-in shares of Westlife Foodworld Ltd. (companies with registered office at Mumbai), a farmhouse at Mahapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, and land at Lonavala; Defendants Nos. 3, 8, 10 and 11 reside out of India. Applying this Court's decision in Tasneem Khatri v. Yunus Ilyas Khatri (Leave Petition No. 9 of 2024, decided 08.07.2024) and relying on Dipika Hitendra Shah v. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah (Leave Petition (L) No. 11286 of 2024, decided 19.04.2024), the Court held that a suit for partition of shares in properties located within and outside its jurisdiction, part of the cause of action having arisen outside, is not a suit for land within the meaning of Clause XII, and that with such leave it has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the suit. Leave was accordingly granted and the Petition allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶1

LPETN 51-25 in SL 18449-25-corrected.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

LEAVE PETITION NO. 51 OF 2025 IN

¶4

SUIT (L) NO. 18449 OF 2025

¶5

Hemann Jatia ...Petitioner V/s.

¶6

Amit Jatta and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ziyad Madon with Mr. Ritish Desai, Ms. Rashi Shah i/b Kartikeya and Associates for the Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 24^th JUNE, 2025

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This Petition seeks leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.

¶11

Mr. Madon, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits

¶12

that the Petitioner seeks to file suit inter-alia for partition in terms of a Family Arrangement arrived at between the Petitioner/Plaintiff and the

¶13

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2025.07.01 20:05:59 +0530

¶14

Respondents/Defendants in 2019 for assets and properties which are not only situate in Mumbai but also outside the jurisdiction of this Court at Mahapura in Jaipur and Lonavala.

¶15

Mr. Madon, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that

¶16

the Family Arrangement was executed in Mumbai within the jurisdiction of this Court. That Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 to 7,9 and 11 are

¶17

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 1^st July, 2025. Nikita Gadgil 1/4

¶18

LPETN 51-25 in SL 18449-25-corrected.doc

¶19

also residents of Mumbai. That 51% Locked in Shares of Westlife Foodworld Ltd. for which partition is sought in the proposed Suit is held by the Defendants No. 12 and 13, which are companies having their registered office also at Mumbai and are carrying on their business in Mumbai and therefore, material cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶20

Mr. Madon would further submit that though the material part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Respondents/Defendants No. 3, 8, 10 and 11 reside out of India and some of the immovable properties sought to be partitioned viz. farmhouse, are situate in Mahapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur and a land are situate in Lonavala, are outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶21

Mr. Madon would submit that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Tasneem Khatri and Others v. Yunus Ilyas Khatri and Others¹ , since this is inter-alia a Suit for partition, although the Suit concerns immovable property, this Court, in view of the settled law, may grant Clause XII leave and that upon leave being granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, this Court would have jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit.

¶22

1 Leave Petition No. 9 of 2024 decided on 08^th July 2024.

¶23

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 1^st July, 2025. Nikita Gadgil 2/4

¶24

LPETN 51-25 in SL 18449-25-corrected.doc

¶25

In the case of Tasneem Khatri and Others v. Yunus Ilyas Khatri and Others (supra), this Court while granting leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent observed that the suit for partition would not be a suit for land within the meaning of Clause XII of the Letters Patent in respect of the Suit where some of the properties were situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶26

In the case of Dipika Hitendra Shah and Another v. Jitendra Jayantilal Shah² , Clause XII leave was granted in an administration suit seeking administration and partition, where some of the properties were located within the jurisdiction of this Court and some in Gujarat, outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶27

Since the proposed Suit is a Suit for partition of shares in properties located within and outside jurisdiction of this Court, where part of cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, in my view, would not be a suit for land and with leave granted by this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the suit.

¶28

2 Leave Petition (L) No. 11286 of 2024 decided on 19^th April, 2024.

¶29

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 1^st July, 2025. Nikita Gadgil 3/4

¶30

LPETN 51-25 in SL 18449-25-corrected.doc

¶31

Accordingly, having heard the learned Counsel and having perused the Plaint and in particular paragraph 73 of the Plaint as well as paragraph 6 of the Petition, for above reasons and those submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that Clause XII leave be granted.

¶32

Accordingly, Leave is hereby granted.

¶33

The Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :

¶34

“(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant to the Petitioner leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent (Bombay) to file the above Suit against the Defendants in this Hon’ble Court.”

¶35

The Petition is, accordingly, allowed and stands disposed as

¶36

above.

¶37

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶38

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 1^st July, 2025. Nikita Gadgil 4/4

Hemann Jatia v. Amit Jatia and 12 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemann Jatia v. Amit Jatia and 12 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tata Capital Limited vs Raviraj B Kawade

Tata Capital Limited vs Shetty Apurva

Tata Capital Limited vs Viva International

Hdb Financial Services Limited vs Lalit Narayan Palekar

Nandani Prafulla Marpakwar vs Vnk Prasad Sarma

Manan Nipun Thakkar vs Nipun Thakkar