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

I will endeavour to complete my submissions: Senior Adv Neeraj Kishan Kaul

Kaul appears for Luthra.

Letter after letter from Luthra was amply clear that he was not retiring.. he was not withdrawing from the firm: Kaul

Kaul asserts that the intention was to restructure the firm instead.

Kaul reads a letter written by Luthra to Saraf.

The letters speaks of Luthra "terminating" the partnership of Saraf.

Mr Luthra has explained that there is a difference between withdrawing, dissolving and terminating the partnership. The power to terminate the partnership of a partner is with Lutha : Kaul

Kaul says that Luthra had terminated the partnership of Saraf and not that he intended to withdraw from the partnership.

Kaul reads another letter written by Luthra.

The letters refers to "goodwill payment" after termination of partnership.

Letter after letter.. and suddenly you say Luthra has retired form the firm: Kaul

Kaul reads the partnership clause on retirement of partners.

I'm continuing till 75 unless I choose to reitre before that.. where do you get that I'm retiring from the firm : Kaul

Their own understanding was that the whole correspondence was on his termination.. (Luthra's retirement is) their unilateral and dishonest interpretation : Kaul

Kaul reads another communication by Luthra on the "misguided" email written by Saraf on Luthra's retirement from the firm.

Kaul argues that Saraf "falsely spread rumours" about Luthra's withdrawal from the firm.

Kaul reads another communication on "creating selfish monsters" and induction of new partners.

Where do you get this that Luthra wants to leave the firm.. except your own dishonest intention.. Repeatedly, Luthra asserted that he was not going to leave the firm that he built : Kaul

Kaul stresses on that Luthra was the founding partner who was dishonestly being shown the door by Saraf.

These are not situation where this man (Saraf) can come back and start merrily working in the firm again : Kaul

I want to give snippets of what he (Saraf) has been writing : Kaul

Kaul reads communication by Saraf on his intended exit from the firm.

This is this man writing.. buy me off.. He is writing these letter and then in October.. gives an interpretation that is not supported by anything: Kaul

Partnership deed envisages exclusive power with Luthra in respect of induction of new partners : Kaul

Kaul reads the relevant provisions.

There was no agreement. Luthra inducted new partners out of his own equity. Saraf does not have the power to induct new partners in case of disagreement : Kaul

Saraf inducted new partners and gave them Luthra's equity and not his own..: Kaul

This was done even when Luthra had not existed. The power to induct was not there. That's the kind of line this man has been following. Can a man like this be allowed to continue in the firm. You ousted the founding partners: Kaul

The firm won't last a day if a man with this destructive streak is allowed to continue : Kaul

The partnership deed can only be terminated and dissolved only by Luthra. Nobody else has the power : Kaul

The nature of interim relief of being restored in the firm cannot happen in the given circumstances and the law : Kaul

Prayer is that Luthra goes out of the firm and Saraf continues. He did not ask for status quo. He's asking for a new status quo: Kaulb

Categorically in the petiton and meditation, it is the parties' stand that they cannot work together. Admittedly, resolution is not possible. Is it practical and reasonable to allow Saraf to come back to the firm and create a mayhem : Kaul

Suppose the termination was wrong in law, your remedy is damages and not restoration: Kaul

Kaul reads more exchanges between Luthra and Saraf.

Here is a man, in February.. says you (Luthra) have saved the company.. in April, says that we have to build an institution for your legacy.. : Kaul

The court must see the conduct of the party before granting interim relief. You say you build the firm just because Luthra allowed you to grow.. and one hand you are saying "tribute to your legacy" and then you oust him. Can such a man be permitted to join the firm? : Kaul

Luthra never gave any withdrawal notice. Saraf in his petiton says it is about termination of the partnership. Luthra has terminated the partnership of Saraf in January which culminated in the Oct 13 letter. What else was the option: Kaul

Luthra is the surviving partner. To say that dissolution must follow is incorrect. The deed says that surviving partner continues. He inducted two new partners. It wasn't that Luthra was alone : Kaul

Whether the exercise of power was right or wrong is for the Arbitrator to see : Kaul

Here is a man (Saraf);who shared WhatsApp conversation: Kaulb

There are no "my clients". They are of the firm: Kaul

The name is of the firm Luthra and L&L. You want to piggyback on his name and oust him. Work goes on. Clients have been informed and work is going on after his exit: Kaul

Offer has been made to compensate you. The problem is that he wants to oust Luthra. What right to livelihood is he saying.. the fact that you'll take royalty and not compete is the partnership deed : Kaul

Who is stopping you from doing your work? The problem is that you want to use the Luthra name: Kaul

Kaul reads provisions of the Specific Relief Act.

The contract is determinable in nature as far as Saraf is concerned. Is it possible to supervise the work of Saraf on a continuous basis? There cannot be any injunction in the matter : Kaul as he reads section 14.

Kaul reads section 16 and 41.

Quite apart from sec 14 and 41(e) (and section 16), even on his (Saraf) conduct, there cannot be any relief: Kaul

Can such a man be entitled to any relief from this court? Who is going to enforce it? : Kaul

The partnership envisages a withdrawal and dissolution and termination. Luthra cannot be terminated. Luthra can dissolve or terminate: Kaul

There are no two 90-day notices under the deed. Principles of natural justice have been complied with: Kaul

No law firm runs with administrator. You whole approach is to destroy. The relief is not equitable or permissable. Your conduct has been so illegal that you are not entitled to any relief: Kaul

It is his own case that the 90-day period is long over when he wanted to oust me. But for his own termination, he says it's two 90 days notice: Kaul

Kaul reads clause on "material breach" when a party becomes unbecoming of a lawyer.

Kaul reads the clause on surviving party retaining offices, clients etc.

You can't say either dissolve or there is no other option: Kaul

When he wanted to oust Luthra, he wanted to retain the firm. Dissolution is an option only with Luthra: Kaulb

Kaul reads the non compete clause.

This provision is the essence of the deed : Kaul

You are signatory to the partnership deed. It is not something that Luthra is imposing on you. The firm is one man's contribution. We're not saying that people did not contribute. Problem is when a man thinks he's bigger than the man who nurtured him : Kaul

Your gratitude has gone and you wanted to highjack the firm : Kaul

Is your livelihood affected? You start your own business and don't take the royalty: Kaul

Grant of relief will be a deathkneell to the firm. No firm can run like this : Kaul

It is his own case that the parties cannot work together: Kaul

If you are that confident of your name, work on it: Kaul

Kaul disputes the argument that powers of Luthra in the deed are only against the new partners and not Saraf.

Kaul calls it an "empty argument".

Saraf had sought to distinguish the use of words "parties" and "partners"in the deed.

Parties are partners and partners inducted later are also parties to the deed : Kaul

This distinction is non existent in the deed : Kaul

This is a desperate argument: Kaul

Kaul reiterates that the deed may be terminated by Luthra.

Kaul reads the relevant clause.

At times things have to be done to save the firm : Kaul

There has been full compliance of provisions and principles of natural justice : Kaul

Has this gentleman been working for common advantage of the firm? ...he seeks to oust th founding partner. His whole conduct.. is he entitled to any work : Kaul

Any relief*

Termination was done in good faith and by virtue of power vested in the contract. Even if such a power was not there, I'm going to show case laws that the surviving partner can do so: Kaul

Kaul reads a judgment.

Should the founding partner have sat back? Is it permissable? : Kaul

There was no option left. There was no option of you continuing : Kaul

Kaul reads another judgment on scope of section 9.

Contract cannot be restored by the court under section 9 : Kaul

Damages is your only remedy: Kaul

Kaul reiterates that Saraf wanted to create a new status quo.

The firm will never survive with his relief : Kaul

Kaul reads another judgement.

If he has not acted in breach of the contract.. you've done everything and now you want to be brought back! : Kaul

Kaul reads a judgement on exercise of equitable powers.

Now I'll read an English judgement: Kaul

Whichever way the court looked- the SRA, general law or principles of equity , there cannot be any relief to Saraf : Kaul

Kaul reads a judgement.

Kaul says that it not a case where there was gross abuse of power which would shake the conscience of the court.

Luthra had the power to terminate the partnership: Kaul

If this matter must go to Arbitration, facts and law do not justify any relief of restoration. This party is not entitled to any interim relief on equitable grounds : Kaul

Kaul concludes.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam for Saraf to make rejoinder submissions on December 3.

Hearing adjourned.