Thread by @barandbench

Delhi High Court to continue hearing case between Mohit Saraf and Rajiv Luthra of L&L Partners

Hearing begins. Senior Advocate Parag Tripathi, appearing for Saraf, takes Court through submissions made previously.

One thing is clear - neither Luthra or Saraf can induct partners into the firm without each other's consent, Tripathi.

Induction of two partners by Luthra without taking partnership's consent is completely whimsical, Tripathi.

As per the deed, right of Luthra to render final decisions for the firm stand reduced after 10 years, Tripathi.

You do not terminate a partner, you terminate and dissolve a partnership deed: Tripathi.

Luthra cannot use his veto power to confer disproportionate benefits to himself, directly or indirectly: Tripathi.

This is not a partnership at will. Saraf is the worker bee who has brought accolades to the firm. He was recognised as a leading lawyer before his expulsion: Tripathi

Clause 7A of the deed does not contemplate Saraf's exclusion. It is only for removal of non-partners: Tripathi

Assuming you have a power of expulsion, there is a requirement of 90+90 days' notice: Tripathi (Saraf was removed from the firm on an immediate basis).

Other side alleged that Saraf has entered the wrong date on which he enrolled at the Bar on his Linkedin profile. Is this really a material breach on his part? Tripathi

This is not a master-servant relationship, they are equals. There is no power of instant expulsion. On this ground, I should get interim relief: Tripathi

Tripathi taking the Court through relevant judgments on Partnership Act.

Luthra has slandered Saraf before people. There is no basis for his expulsion, there is no material breach: Tripathi

The firm (L&L Partners) is bound to suffer by keeping Saraf out of it: Tripathi

To sum up, there is no power of expulsion. If there was power of expulsion, it needed to be done in a bona fide manner, which is missing in this case. Thirdly, the 180-day notice was not followed: Tripathi concludes his arguments.

Promod Nair making submissions on behalf of Saraf @Promodnair1

Kindly consider the balance of convenience and the possibility of irreversible damage to stakeholders: Nair @Promodnair1

I (Saraf) have been illegally removed from the firm, if I practice outside the firm, I will lose my right to goodwill. My right to livelihood is at stake: Nair

Saraf, who has been running this firm, has been thrown out overnight. If clients walk away as a result, the firm will come crumbling down. Therefore there is severe urgency to restore the status quo prior to Saraf's expulsion: Nair

Tripathi clarifies that Saraf is not pressing prayers (f), (g), (l) of the petition to the extent of the Delhi litigation firm and Bombay corporate firm (for now).

Hearing concludes. Matter to be taken up next on November 18.

L&L bound to suffer by keeping Saraf out: Parag Tripathi concludes submissions for Mohit Saraf [Read LIVE Account of Delhi HC hearing]

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…