Thread by @barandbench

Delhi High Court will shortly begin hearing plea by Mohit Saraf, Senior Partner, L&L Partners against the firm's Founder Partner, Rajiv Luthra.

Matter is before Justice V Kameswar Rao.

#MohitSaraf #RajivLuthra

Saraf's primary grievance is that he could not be summarily thrown out of L&L Partners using strong-arm tactics.

#MohitSaraf #RajivLuthra

Read more:
barandbench.com/news/ll-partne…

Last week, the High Court had sent the two senior-most partners to mediation before Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu.

Read more:

barandbench.com/news/delhi-hig…

On the second day of the hearing, Saraf had prayed that interim protection be extended to him while the meditation goes on.

Read more: barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Hearing begins.

#MohitSaraf #RajivLuthra

Senior Adv Parag Tripathi begins for Saraf.

This firm was constituted in 1999. The corporate firm has a turnover of over Rs 100 crore. Saraf is doing over 12 cases and corporate restructuring work. He's going an hour to hour job: Tripathi

The office floor is locked and acess is denied. There are bouncers. I should be permitted to do my work for the firm. Litigation is at large. The Court is yet to apply its mind to sec 9 plea: Tripathi

There was no whisper of any misfeasance by me : Tripathi

They were aware of my plea before the High Court. They could have held back the advertisement in HT : Tripathi

My removal from the website, blocking access to IT infrastructure. There are stop payment instruction to banks. I'm am a respectable gentleman. It was not at all necessary: Tripathi

My access to account and records have been blocked. I will be paid goodwill if I don't practice law : Tripathi

When the court was told that no precipitate action would be taken.. there is a letter of Oct 18 by Rajiv Luthra: Tripathi

Tripathi reads the letter written by Luthra to partners at L&L Partners, asking if anyone has signed any deed with Saraf.

This letter what does it say.. it says Luthra has faith in his team and if you talk to Saraf, you are breaking that faith.. : Tripathi

Please see what is my position here. From 14th, I'm completely about if sync. Section 9 of partnership act requires maintenance of continuity: Tripathi

Assuming that if has terminated my partnership, although I deny that he can't do it.. if I'm kept out, it will be over for me : Tripathi

What will be the disadvantage caused to them if I'm allowed access. Of course accounts can be maintained. Luthra is still running the show. Why should I be shut out. It is the money which will be paid to the firm. I'm not taking it: Tripathi

Tripathi lists some of the clients.

Adv Haripriya for Luthra objects, says it's completely unacceptable to disclose this information.

It's like saying we are transferring you from one room to another but taking away the oxygen plug : Tripathi

It's wrong to say that Luthra has ultimate power.. it's an extra ordinary argument that we won't let you talk to the client and you can't say who they are either : Tripathi

Tripathi reads the clause on "Consideration for non-compete".

12 year period was over in 2011. This is post 12 year period. Reference to misconduct is only when the employment is of 4 years : Tripathi

Tripathi continues to read.

Justice Rao loses his connection.

Justice Rao joins back.

There is 90+90 das notice. He gave in January: Tripathi

For three months, I am entitled to function as a partner. I cannot suffer a civil death for the purpose of meditation: Tripathi

This is a big firm. It has a reputation and total turnover of 250 crore. All the youngsters will leave the firm. They were handpicked by me. It is for teh benefit of no one: Tripathi

I should be reinstated at the Partner and allowed to work for the firm : Tripathi

The extension of the mandate should be explicit: Tripathi

Suggested joint statement said that both parties welcomed the meditation and encouraged the mediator to talk anyone in the firm. But they have not approved it yet. They said the mediation should not talk to others. I said alright: Tripathi

Meditation should go on in a meaningful way: Tripathi

Firms have electronic account details and record.. I can't take it home. No harm will be caused to them : Tripathi

Senior Adv Arvind Nigam: What is being sought is not inconsistent with the Partnership Act.

Nigam appears for Saraf.

Property of the firm is the assets of the firm. Chapter 5 of the Act provides for retirement of the partner. : Nigam reads section 32.

This is not a partnership at will. The deed does not provide for expulsion of a partner: Nigam

There is no expulsion unless on the grounds mentioned in clause 8..Other is dissolution. Till that process is over, one can't say this belongs to you and that belongs to me. It belongs to the firm : Nigam

If you remove me from IT infrastructure, you are removing me from the asset of the firm: Nigam

Nigam reads section 44 on dissolution of the firm.

Unilaterally a partner cannot bar another partner from the assets of the firm till dissolution: Nigam

Nigam reads Section 48.

Under which provision of law are they excluding me when I'm under notice as per them. We are founding partners. This is a not a master servant relationship: Nigam

For 20 years I've given my blood and toil to tbe firm. people may not know me on the litigation firm. I have been managing the firm for years: Tripathi

Litigation side*

Nigam reads the notice given to him terminating his Partnership.

Nigam reads clause 7(a) of the deed.

This is relatable to sec 12 of Partnership Act: Nigam

Nigam reads the section.

The section speaks of decisions being taken by a majority. Partnership of two partners means unanimity: Nigam

Nigam reads the provision on induction of new partners.

A Partner appointed by Luthra unilaterally has no rights in the firm: Nigam

Extent on management rights have to be decided unanimously: Nigam.

The deed refers to Luthra and Saraf as parties or their initials: Nigam

It doesn't those two as partners. Reference to Partners is to those who may get inducted as partners: Nigam

I couldn't hear you. Please repeat your submission: Court tells Nigam

Court experiences connectivity issues.

Nigam sums up the arguments he made on induction of partners by Luthra.

Clause 7 refers to a situation when more partners have been inducted in the firm: Nigam

The rights qua Saraf have been dealt with in Clause 5 : Nigam

The reference to their right under Clause 7a is misconceived: Nigam

In partnership law there is no termination, there is only dissolution of the firm. It is not a partnership at will. They are saying that it can be terminated by Luthra and one other. But the conditions are given in the deed. It also requires unanimity: Nigam

There is no unanimity. They reply on the condition of material breach: Nigam

90days are given to resolve the issue from the date of service of notice. Ex facie there is a problem with the notice and the status of the from continues. Hence my status also continues. What is material breach is also defined. Until Oct 13, I was never given any notice: Nigam

Nigam refers to a communication by Luthra seeking a golden handshake.

This is his intention.. not mine: Nigam

Pending further hearing, some interim arrangement can be considered by the court : Nigam

Tripathi points out the proviso to clause 8.

First notice contemplates 90 days lock-in in any case for resolution. Meditation is in aide of this period: Tripathi

Senior Adv Abhishek Manu Singhvi begins.

He appears for Rajiv Luthra.

It is a strange case where we agreed to mediation. They agreed and no objection was made. Now there is complete rethink and review. They are asking for interim orders on each day after we agreed (otherwise): Singhvi

It is a very strange situation. It is contradictory and antithetical. Courts never do it. To ride two horses.. in a situation when mediation was agreed to : Singhvi

Complete trust has been lost.. how can interlocutory order be passed without filing of replies : Singhvi

Lawyers can use statesman like language but it is the client that matter. This person made 23 partners in October after retiring me..from equity taken from me. How fired the first shot? : Singhvi

I tried my best to expel you, grab the firm but now I'm being very conciliatory: Singhvi

Singhvi urges the court to re-read the letter written by Luthra to partners after mediation began.

Singhvi reiterates that Saraf shared WhatsApp conversation.

He annexed client lists. Without my reply, the court cannot pass an order. Delhi Corp firm is not at will: Singhvi

He has filed a rolled up sec 9 .. the Partnership combination is different for different firms : Singhvi

How can I ask for mediation and an interim order : Singhvi

The court will not be generous.. Lawyer fighting lawyer, they should know what to file : Singhvi

1997, I admit him with 25% and make a firm. Why is the firm called Luthra & Luthra? Why not Saraf & Luthra?: Singhvi

The share was increased later. I don't expect gratitude but I expect the truth. This is the worst form of backstabbing: Singhvi

Mr Nigam went to the Partnership Act because the deed is very inconvenient. It is the deed that covers the firm and not the Act: Singhvi

It is Luthra's firm. He is the sole owner: Singhvi

Luthra can write cheques to any limit. This is not writ jurisdiction. We are creatures of contract here: Singhvi

Singhvi reads other provisions giving power / special status to Luthra.

Only Luthra can enter into new legal ventures : Singhvi

Luthra has veto and final say in matters: Luthra

Saraf can be given appraisal by Luthra and not the other way around. Saraf cannot question Luthra's time utilisation. Devil lies in the detail. Which is the deed in this case: Singhvi

Non management equity partners can be inducted only by Luthra: Singhvi

There is unilateral termination clause in Luthra's favour : Singhvi

Adv Haripriya reads the other clauses on Luthra's powers.

Singhvi asks Haripriya to read clause 7D.

There are 400 lawyers. Not one has said that I want to leave: Singhvi

Certain activities are based on trust, faith: Singhvi

What is so special that it can't be taken up after the holidays and mediation is given a fair chance? : Singhvi

The fight started in July 2019.. : Singhvi

I told him let's work out. On 10th, he inducts two partners then on 12th, he makes 23 partners: Singhvi

He has not read the deed apprently: Singhvi

As per him, the notice is on 10 Jan. Let's not talk of notices: Singhvi

WhatsApp message of Republic Day 2020 is the exact opposite of me retiring. His own section 9.. says that "persons disagreeing..". Which means persons are disagreeing and not leaving: Singhvi

The entire mediation and firm will be destroyed if an interim order is passed. Let us file a reply. It can't be argued in piecemeal: Singhvi

What is the difference between what happened on the first day and today? : Court asks Nigam

On 16/10/2020, you made these submissions and they opposed. : Court

They muddied the water after they received advance notice. They barred my access : Nigam

They say that I will be given payment in lieu of 90days. Retainers are being threatened: Nigam

You argued, they also argued. You said you are ready for mediation, they also agreed. They say they have to file the reply. I recorded that you wanted status quo ante. It was expected that inter se disputes would be settled: Court

To insist upon an interim order.. you either say that I don't want mediation and I will ask for a reply : Court

Let there be a level playing field then : Nigam

You tell the mediator. You come back and we will decide then: Court

Either you continue with the mediation or you say that you want the court to decide and I will ask for a reply: Court

Meditation is going on...let this work be given to the mediator. The mediator can tell what can be the interim measure: Tripathi

You should have said it the day before: Court

There can be an interim arrangement which is be in aide of the mediation: Nigam

Now we've lost two days before the mediator: Court

The mediator wanted specific instructions if the mediation was to continue: Tripathi

The mediator is examining it. What will be the prejudice. Mediation can't happen with a gun to my head : Tripathi

All that they have to do is walk along and if in the end they say that I don't agree, I am finished: Tripathi

I can continue subject to the mediation. The court can pass an order in aide of the mediation: Tripathi

If I have to consider your relief, opportunity has to be given to them to file a reply: Court

If you want to work it out before the mediator, it is one thing: Court

The court may ask the mediator to decide: Tripathi

But the parties have to take it up on their own. The parties may come at an interim arrangement : Senior Adv AS Chandiok

Let is come at an interim arrangement.. in the meantime they can file a reply: Tripathi

How can you do both. When two people are in a room, a top meditator has gone into the issue , we can't comment: Senior Adv Gopal Shankarnarayan

Let us select one way and go with it: Shankarnarayan

Parties are professionals. It is ultimately for them to take a call: Court

If mediation continues, on Nov 2, a reply can be filed: Chandiok

And the parties should go to mediation with an open mind : Court

Yes: Chandiok

If mediation fails, we will file a reply: Chandiok

On Nov 2, we can take a call. Let the mediation continue : Court

On Nov 2, we will have it without any reply : Court

By month end, the parties will know if the mediation is a success and accordingly a reply can be filed : Tripathi

The other party is saying that pleadings may vitiate the process before the mediator: Court

Let them file it on Nov 1. If it's settled.. : Tripathi

It's a matter of one day: Court

The court may say that if parties don't settle, reply be filed on Nov 2: Tripathi

We will list on Nov 2 and seek report from Mediator. If not settled, we will take it up on 3rd: Court

Order:

They are suggested that mediation continue. They seek permission to request for an interim arrangement before the mediator.

The mediator may make an attempt to compete the mediation by Nov 1.

A report be placed on Nov 2: Court

If mediation fails, we will have it for hearing on November 3: Court

This court permits the mediator to take assistance of Ms Aparna Mukherjee as co-mediator: Court

Hearing comes to an end.

Mohit Saraf v. Rajiv Luthra: LIVE UPDATES from Delhi High Court hearing on interim relief

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Mohit Saraf v. Rajiv Luthra: Delhi High Court asks mediator to complete process by November 1; no interim relief granted

barandbench.com/news/mohit-sar…