Agreement between parties cannot confer jurisdiction on court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by an agreement if the court otherwise does not have such a jurisdiction [Aanchal Mittal and Ors v Ankur Shukla]..Justice Amit Bansal said that a jurisdiction cannot be vested on a court by agreement between the parties if there is no cause of action that arises in the territorial limits of that court..The High Court was dealing with a suit filed by a company against the order of District Judge Commercial-01, South East, New Delhi, whereby its application stating that the courts in Delhi do not have jurisdiction to deal with the issue was declined.The plaint from which the present petition arose was filed by one Ankur Shukla claiming that he was a partner in the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) known as 'Baby Staples' but his access to its business accounts was revoked and therefore, an order should be passed giving him access/possession of all the business accounts..The company, the instant petitioners, told the Court that the registered office of the LLP is located in Hyderabad and therefore, courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction over the issue.It was stated that none of the records of the company are in Delhi, no meeting has been held here and therefore, there is no cause of action either.The respondent/plaintiff argued that the LLP Agreement dated October 2018 gave exclusive jurisdiction to courts in Delhi and the business of the company was being carried in the national capital..However, Justice Bansal noted that it was nowhere pleaded in the plaint that the business accounts, of which access was being sought, are kept in Delhi.The judge added that the suit was ‘conspicuously’ silent with regard to the cause of action for its filing in the national capital as well.The High Court said that the fact that business of LLP is being carried out in Delhi would not vest it with jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.“An LLP or any other business entity can carry out business in different parts of the country. But that would not mean that a suit, with regard to disputes between the partners, could be filed in any place where the business of the firm/LLP is carried out. What has been raised in the plaint is a dispute with regard to the business accounts of the LLP,” the Court said. .The Bench further said that Section 13 of the LLP Act provides that each LLP shall have a registered office where all the communication and notices should be addressed and received.It said that Section 11 and 36 of the Act mandate that the documents regarding annual return and incorporation should be available for inspection with the Registrar of the State where LLP is registered, and in terms of Section 34(1) of the Act, the book of accounts in respect of the LLP should be maintained at its registered office.“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 try and entertain the present suit,” the Court stated. .The High Court, therefore, set aside the order of the District Court and returned the plaint to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction..Advocates K C Mittal, Yugansh Mittal and Sanjay Kumar appeared for the petitioners, the defendant was represented by advocate Vishal Singh..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.