ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Duvva Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The 1st respondent filed A.O.P.No.40 of 2020 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (the Trial Court), under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the short, ‘the Act of 1996’) praying to grant injunction restraining petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 from taking action or exercising the rights in connection with the management of M/s. Sagarasia Global LLP (the LLP), changing the management of the LLP and direct the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 to keep the petitioners informed about the operations and management of the LLP. The Trial Court granted ex-parte injunction and directions as prayed by the 1st respondent.

3. The Petitioners filed I.A.No.551 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Trial Court to reject the A.O.P.No.40 of 2020. The petitioners contended that the subject matter of A.O.P., is a commercial dispute and therefore, only the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain and consider the said application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. Repelling their contentions, the I.A., was dismissed by order dated 09.11.2020. Challenging the said decision, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the first respondent holds 15 % stake in the LLP, which comes to Rupees fifteen lakhs and total contribution of all partners is Rupees one crore. There is an inter se dispute among the partners arising out of LLP and therefore the dispute is a commercial dispute and all applications under the Act, 1996 have to be moved only before a Commercial Court and not before a Civil Court. He would submit that deliberately the first respondent did not specify the value when he first presented application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court. Further, as facts are clear and as understood by the first respondent, in Arbitration Application No.61 of 2020 filed before this Court under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator and for allied reliefs what is urged in the A.O.P 40 of 2020 is a commercial dispute and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such application.

5. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the first respondent, the dispute is purely among the partners and is limited to the extent of failure of commitments and obligations under the LLP and by the time A.O.P No. 40 of 2020 was filed valuation was not quantified, as such, the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 9 of the Act, 1996.

6. The Trial Court held that the dispute is between the partners of LLP and other documents which relate to independent agreements are no way connected to the dispute among the partners on functioning of the LLP. The Trial Court also agreed with the contention of 1st respondent that as of now, the value is not quantified and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court cannot be ascertained.

7. The issue for consideration is whether the Civil Court erred in entertaining A.O.P No.40 of 2020 under Section 9 of the Act of 1996.

8. To the extent relevant to decide the issue, the facts are as under:

Petitioners and respondents formed the LLP by executing Limited Liability Partnership Agreement dated 19.04.2019 under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. As per the terms of Agreement LLP was formed by investing Rs.10,00,000.00/- (rupees ten lakhs). On 16.05.2019, supplementary agreement was executed raising the capital contribution to Rs.1,00,00,000.00/- (rupees one crore). The contribution of first respondent was Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) which comes to 15 % of the total contribution of all partners. His share in profits/losses of the LLP is pegged at 15 %. Differences arose among the partne