Thread by @barandbench

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

Matter is before Justice V Kameswar Rao.

#MohitSaraf #RajivLuthra

No single straw breaks the camel's back, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi begins his submissions on behalf of Rajiv Luthra.

@DrAMSinghvi

Only fevicol can join broken hearts and judges joining hearts is a recipe of disaster. Some relationships are based on trust: Singhvi

It is Mr Saraf's imagination that I was going to retire: Singhvi

Singhvi lists the broad framework of his arguments.

Taking to the press.. everything is published by that portal before the ink is dry: Singhvi

Talking*

Let me start with misjoinder and non joinder of parties : Singhvi

The relief as asked would mean that the court would have a contempt every day : Singhvi

There are three entities. Two are partnership at will. Delhi corporate is not at will : Singhvi

Nature of partnership, no of partners is different. How do you have this rolled up plea : Singhvi

Mr Tripathi has said that he is not pressing for Delhi litigation and Bombay Corporate firm: Court

There is both misjoinder and non joinder : Singhvi

Can he seek relief like this? Can he orally tell something? His own case is that I inducted two new parteners. He inducted 23. Are they parties? : Singhvi

Can it be said that their civil rights would not be impacted? Are they subject to any Arbitration ? This jurisdiction of court is a creature of contract: Singhvi

Apart from making oral submissions, my friend has done nothing. We have a system of amendment. Orders are ambushed by oral submissions: Singhvi

It is not ignorance. It (plaint) is drafted with cognizance: Singhvi

The court must dismiss the suit on misjoinder and non joinder : Singhvi

Let us be under no doubt that Mr Saraf's final prayer is Luthra out and Mohit Saraf in. You are doing a final hearing of section 9 where prayer is this. He wants a new status quo and not status quo ante: Singhvi

There is no firm called Mohit Saraf. Such a species of status quo does not exist: Singhvi

Both sides agree that working together is not possible and they must part ways : Singhvi.

Singhvi reads a communication from Saraf to Luthra.

His petiton makes it clear that coexistence is out of question. Can under Section 9 the court give the relief of exclusion: Singhvi

This is a complete ouster. There is no interlocutory section 9 now. You must erase the name Luthra from the firm. The spirit and understanding is clear : Singhvi as he reads the prayers in the suit.

Court cannot pass an order contrary to the contract: Singhvi

I can either withdraw myself or retire. Saraf cannot evict, terminate, expel Luthra : Singhvi

The relief being sought is in the teeth of the agreement: Singhvi

Singhvi reads the clause Luthra's decision being final in the event of disagreement.

Clause on *

Singhvi further reads the clauses on Luthra's veto power under the partnership deed.

Only Luthra has the power to appraise the performance of Saraf. Spirit of the deed is that there is a dominant person.. there are special rights: Singhvi

Singhvi reads the clause on induction of partners.

Wherever there is a deadlock, there is a one way street in my favour: Singhvi

I exercised this clause (on induction of partners) for two people and not 23. There is no reverse rights : Singhvi

It is not even handed. We are not here under art 14 to judge even handedness. In the interest of the firm we agreed to to this. He claims that all the work is done by him..But where does the work come from?: Singhvi

The retirement age for Luthra is 80 years. Saraf is 75. Retirement is possible earlier in certain circumstances: Singhvi

Non even handedness runs throughout the deed, whether you like it or not. The equation is spelt out : Singhvi

Semantic interpretation of the deed cannot be allowed. For my fault, can the deed be wound up? That's a very strange way of interpretation: Singhvi

If I violative Bat Council Rules .. Mr Luthra will wind up the entire firm?: Singhvi

According to him, the person must not go but the entire deed must go: Singhvi

Because of this interpretation, the court can sound a death knell to the firm? : Singhvi

The deed makes the other person respectable but less dominant. The prayers are in the teeth of the deed : Singhvi

Core issue is whether Saraf's termination is valid or not. The deed gives me the power and I've acted. I've given a Rs 5 crore cheque or something: Singhvi

In this interim, the court cannot give a final finding unless there isa compelling case : Singhvi

It's very important to understand the nature of section 9 qua this case. There is a less dominant person. It is an unequal marriage. You entered consciously: Singhvi

There is not question of me retiring. He is relying on a supposed voluntary retirement by me : Singhvi

No question*

Singhvi reads a communication between Luthra and Saraf.

There is a complete communication gap. It is distortion : Singhvi on Luthra's alleged voluntary retirement.

Luthra wasn't handing him the firm. Assuming that in my moment of pain I said that I want to leave, can the court grant relief on such a stray sentence? : Singhvi

The extreme view is that both of us wanted to part and end the deed. But neither acted on it. There was no done deed : Singhvi

Singhvi reads more communication between Saraf and Luthra.

This (the communication) only means that the partnership is minus you and not minus me. How is it possible to argue to the contrary? : Singhvi

This is the conduct of a person who says if you want to leave, get out. There is no question of me retiring: Singhvi

These are long continuous WhatsApp messages: Singhvi

The question is whether I've left or I'm about to leave. The court is not seeing the rightness or wrongness: Singhvi

Singhvi reads more messages.

Luthra is talking about restarting everything upon the exist of Saraf. This is not the approach of a departing, retiring person : Singhvi

Section 9 is not available unless position on ground is crystal clear. Arbitration trial will take some time to decide all this. At the worst, it is an interpretation exercise: Singhvi

I'm in. You are not: Singhvi

Luthra in a townhall meeting objected to Saraf misleading.. He said look this is not correct and I'm here : Singhvi continues to read the messages.

The court's order will be a semi permanent decree. Section 9 petitioner cannot ask the court to act like a suit court : Singhvi

Unless the court is able to draw an unequivocal conclusion, section 9 cannot be founded on it. 2-3 stray sentenses cannot make my retirement. Till I actually depart, I can change my mind : Singhvi

Singhvi reads Luthra's statement on him not retiring or withdrawing from the firm.

Can I take a 5-7 mins break?: Singhvi

Court agrees.

Hearing to resume in 10 mins.

Hearing resumes.

Please note two dates. On Oct 12, Mr Saraf wrote emails to all members and Mr Luthra. Luthra replied immediately to both. Is it fair for anyone to misrepresent that Luthra has retired? : Singhvi

This is the worst kind of distortion: Singhvi reads the email to Luthra.

He's putting words into my mouth: Singhvi

Singhvi continues to read the email.

Thrusting words into my mouth.. and the court at this stage is being asked to give a finding: Singhvi

He then concludes on a breach of the deed and refers to himself as surviving partner : Singhvi

I'm just showing how desperate the person is to design a ground for the suit that is to follow : Singhvi

He's building up the same issues.. look at the kind of confusion..does this person have the firm's interest in mind? : Singhvi continues to read the communications.

There is a misplaced sense of grandeur: Singhvi

There is a big lollypop being dangled : Singhvi on Saraf's communication that 66% equity would be distributed.

I responded on the same day. No afterthought. On the same day, he inducted 23 partners: Singhvi

Where does he say that he inducted 23 partners? : Court

He says in the petiton itself. There was no communication : Counsel

Are you saying that partnership deeds are annexed? : Court

Yes, without names : Adv Pooja Dhar.

Let me check it. There was no communication prior to the filing: Singhvi

One of the basis of Saraf is that I said let me go : Singhvi

It is a rhetorical sentence.. context is sarcastic : Singhvi

It shows why interpretation of Mr Saraf ie antithetical. Two days later Mr Luthra replies saying I'm terminating you. if you want to go, you can leave. Mr Saraf says disputes may go to arbitration: Singhvi

Singhvi continues to refer to the exchange between the two.

He relies on me referring to a buy out. There's no agreement to say that Mr Saraf will pay me Rs 10 and I will get out : Singhvi

The intention is certainly not retirement. Luthra was being sarcastic. Please see the message sent on Republic Day: Singhvi

It is very clear that there is no question of Luthra leaving. : Singhvi

The man is creating a case for section 9.. putting words in my mouth: Singhvi continues to read the message.

All this is in January. Much water has flown since then. On the contrary, Saraf has said that he was ready to be bought out. All the letters are in June 2020: Singhvi

He's writing the same thing but I'm not saying that it is a done deed. Both of us were in anguish. He's talking of options : Singhvi

It is directly contrary to Section 9 stand : Singhvi

I'm not taking any perverse stand : Singhvi

Mr Luthra could have terminated him much earlier: Singhvi

The court should not forget the approach in section 9. This case wants a new status quo. Luthra & Luthra without Luthra : Singhvi

Howsoever final a section 9 may be.. suppose the Arbitrator reverses it. Can the situation be rectified later: Singhvi

Section 9 lies when there is accuracy.. section 9 links to the common law principle under Specific Relief Act. They are seeking a recipe for disaster : Singhvi

For non commercial, fiduciary relationship, SRA is largely the same : Singhvi

Singhvi reads the provisions of SRA.

You cannot run a law firm if you has to look over the shoulder of your junior: Singhvi

Assuming I am at fault, am I the only one to is wrong? I'm assuming section 9 is final.. : Singhvi

Singhvi argues that there is no case to interfere at this stage.

Singhvi continues to SRA.

Please note section 37(2) SRA: Singhvi

Injunction in the present case will not be in perpetuity but it will be more than temporary: Singhvi

I don't mean it lightly but the court is being asked to run Luthra & Luthra under section 9. That is the effect: Singhvi

Section 41(e) is the negative of all that I've been reading: Singhvi

I need one more session. If it could be a Friday: Singhvi.

Friday is physical hearing. If I get free, we can take it up virtually thereafter: Court

Senior Adv Neeraj Kishan Kaul suggests that he may be permitted to argue tomorrow.

Court agress.

Hearing adjourned for the day.

Matter to be heard next tomorrow.