TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artnership (LLP), and against the respondents no.1 and 2/defendants no.1 and 2, who are the remaining partners of the said LLP. 5. The prayers made out in the plaint are set out below: "a. Declare that the Plaintiff, being a Partner of the Defendant no. 3 and having consequential rights under law and the LLP Agreement, has at all times right of access to all business accounts of Defendant no. 3 including with Big Basket (for sales and supply), Amazon Seller Central (for sales and supply), Word press (for website and marketing), and Google Suite (the Plaintiff's professional email account with Defendant No. 3) and all information contained therein; and b. Pass an order holding the actions of revocation of access of Plaintiff from all business accounts including with Big Basket (for sales and supply), Amazon Seller Central (for sales and supply), Word press (for website and marketing), and Google Suite (the Plaintiff's professional email account with Defendant No. 3), as illegal in law and therefore void; and c. Pass an order directing the Defendants to grant access / possession of all business accounts of Defendant no. 3 to the Plaintiff and related inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 entered between the parties, the exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the Courts in Delhi. ii. The business of the LLP was duly being carried out in Delhi through the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the cause of action would arise in Delhi. In this regard, reference is made to e-mail dated 8th August, 2018 written by the petitioner no.1/defendant no.1 wherein, the respondent/plaintiff has been asked to promote the business of LLP in Delhi. iii. The LLP is supplying its goods to "Nature's Soul", which is a physical store situated at 27, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, Main Market, South East, Delhi and therefore, it cannot be said that the LLP is not doing business in Delhi and accordingly, the Courts in Delhi would be competent to try and entertain the present suit. iv. The dispute raised in the present suit is not in the nature of the compromise or arrangement between the partners and therefore, does not fall under provisions of Sections 60, 61, 62 and 63 of the LLP Act. Hence, the parties cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the NCLT. 8. Vide the impugned order, the Commercial Court after noting the submissions of the parties, dismissed the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P Agreement that "competent courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction". 12. As regards, the cause of action for filing of the present case, the only averment made are in paragraph 28 of the plaint which is set out below: "28. The Suit is within limitation as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the contemporaneous events that resulted in the cause of action have only recently occurred in the month of November, 2019." 13. No details have been pleaded in the aforesaid paragraph of the plaint with regard to the cause of action that arose in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to file the present suit in Delhi. 14. The entire basis of the respondent/plaintiff for filing the suit in Delhi is on account of the fact that the LLP carried out business in Delhi and that the products of the LLP are regularly sold in Delhi by means of online sales as well as through physical stores such as Nature's Soul, which is in Delhi. 15. In my considered view, taking into account the nature of the disputes raised in the plaint being inter-se disputes of partners, the fact that business of the LLP is being carried out in Delhi would not vest the Courts of Delhi wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urts in Delhi in terms of Clause 23 of the LLP Agreement, Clause 23 of the LLP Agreement is set out below: "23. Jurisdiction: Subject to the provisions mentioned hereinbefore, competent courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate over matters relating to or arising out of the present Agreement" 21. In the opinion of this Court, the counsel for the petitioners/defendants in this regard has correctly placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Roadways (supra) to contend that a jurisdiction cannot be vested on a Court by agreement of the parties if that Court inherently lacks jurisdiction. 22. It is evident from the facts of the present case that there is no principal or subordinate office of the LLP in the State of Delhi and neither are the books of accounts kept in Delhi, therefore, there is no cause of action in respect of the present suit, which is arising within the territorial limits of the Courts in Delhi. Furthermore, the parties by agreement cannot give jurisdiction to a Court, which otherwise does not have such jurisdiction. Thus, I am of the considered view that the Courts in Delhi lack the territorial jurisdiction to tr....