Thread by @barandbench

Delhi High Court resumes hearing in Mohit Saraf v Rajiv Luthra dispute [Live updates follow]

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi making submissions on behalf of Luthra. @DrAMSinghvi

It is not an equal arrangement between Saraf and Luthra, Singhvi reiterates.

When you start cherry-picking parts of the deed, it will not work, because that is not the intent of the parties to the deed: Singhvi

In communications between the two, Saraf himself admitted that Luthra has the casting vote on matters related to termination of the firm: Singhvi

They have used termination, withdrawal, and retirement from the firm interchangeably: Singhvi

It is only in the rejoinder arguments that they brought up the 90-day notice argument: Singhvi

Contract of partnership requires utmost good faith: Singhvi proceeds to show the Court why the termination of Saraf was justified

Singhvi refers to communication sent by Saraf referring to Luthra as a "corn artist"

Tomorrow, if he (Saraf) is allowed to return and he makes an allegation, how will the firm run? Refers to "abusive" language used by Saraf in letters/messages to Luthra that were publicised: Singhvi

One of the allegations is that Luthra and (L&L Senior Partner) Bobby Chandhoke was cheating Saraf: Singhvi

In lighter vein, Senior Advocate Amarjit Singh Chandhiok clarifies that it is not him. Justice Rao says, "This is the first time I'm hearing that you are called "Bobby"."

"We are happy that all the Chandhioks are on our side", Singhvi says.

Court takes a ten-minute break at Singhvi's request.

Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan making submissions on behalf of Luthra

After Saraf's termination, the partnership will continue. Luthra has discretion to give management rights to any equity partners he may induct: Padmanabhan

Saraf has admitted in a WhatsApp message that Luthra has the power to terminate partners. The minute you admit this, you can't later change the meaning of terms in the deed: Padmanabhan

Singhvi resumes. Accuses Saraf of washing dirty linen in public. Can a fiduciary relationship exist after this happens?

Saraf has a special affinity for the editor of Legally India, Singhvi says, lamenting that information that would hurt the firm was published on the website.

Singhvi using screen sharing to cite the case of IRCTC v. Cox & Kings on the issue of specific performance

Scope of Section 9 is not to restore a contract that has already been terminated: Singhvi cites the Delhi HC judgment in Bharat Catering v IRCTC

A person who acts in variance with the relation intended to be established by the contract cannot claim specific performance: Singhvi cites Rajeev Mehra case of 2009.

Court should step back and see what kind of relief would make this a nightmare, and what would be beneficial to parties. Any relief given to Saraf will adversely affect the firm, Singhvi.

Singhvi concludes. Matter to be heard next on Tuesday, November 24.