Rajiv vs Mohit Saraf: Come back with a workable solution, it's not looking good anymore: Delhi High Court [LIVE UPDATES]

The Delhi High Court is hearing appeal moved by Rajiv Luthra challenging the order staying the termination of Mohit Saraf from L&L partnership.Earlier, the Court had stayed the termination of Senior Partner Mohit Saraf from the firm's partnership pending the conclusion of arbitration proceedings with Founder and Managing Partner Rajiv Luthra.By an order dated January 22, the Court said that during the pendency of Rajiv Luthra's appeal against the order of the Single Judge, Mohit Saraf shall not be entitled to physically access the offices of L&L Partners. .[BREAKING] Only virtual access to L&L Partners for Mohit Saraf: Delhi High Court lays down interim arrangement .However, the Court directed Rajiv Luthra to immediately restore Mohit Saraf's access to the law firm's e-mail ID and restrained the former from directly or indirectly interfering with the latter servicing the clients of the law firm..Live updates of the hearing today feature on this page. .Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appears for Rajiv Luthra..Is any proposal workable? : Court .I'm not aware. I'd offered : Singhvi .I don't think anything has come... : Senior Advocate Parag P Tripathi for Saraf..Advocate Haripriya for Luthra informs that the an email has been received by them with respect to a workable proposal. .You continue that process. We'll hear the matter: Court.Senior Advocate Singhvi begins his submissions.Singhvi takes the court through the structure of the partnership deed. .It is 67 and 33..name is Luthra. I'm not giving any value judgement.. I'm just showing how to read the read with the true intent of parties : Singhvi.Clearly, Mohit Saraf doesn't have half the power as Luthra: Singhvi as he reads the deed..Goodwill, clients, names.. they are all dealt with one way or the other.. staff is transferred to the firm but a little veto is given to Luthra (RKL): Singhvi.Everywhere it is RKL.. be it veto or finality of agreeing or not : Singhvi .We're jot concerned with is..how should the end take place. Is this not what we should be concerned with : Court.We should see the parameters that we should use for interim measure: Court.These are eight parameters .. it was a deliberate unequal relationship and that should be given effect to : Singhvi.Without the true meaning, the court can't be asked to adjudicate one way or the other : Singhvi.Some letters are not being shown..there are a set of admissions with respect to full notice of termination. It is impossible for getting a person hoisted on another person. It is a creation for disaster: Singhvi.Single judge may not be right at all by joining the unjoinables.. forcing them to work together.. seventh is Special Relief Act. It bars such relief given by Single Judge: Singhvi.Post judgement, about 3-3.5 months have lapsed.. when Arbitration is going on, that position from October - January must continue: Singhvi.Arbitration should be directed to conclude in a short time : Singhvi.What is the claim in Arbitration? : Court .Statement of claim is yet to be filed : Advocate Haripriya .You'll seek some interim orders: Court .Claimant is Mr Saraf : Advocate Haripriya.Assessor can assess the amount. we can have a clean parting. A third party can work it out if it's about the money: Singhvi.Either me or nobody else.. that is not good for the firm. Luckily it's just the two of them . Firm must continue. Since dominant partner is Mr Luthra, he must continue. Mr Saraf can be given an honourable exit : Singhvi.Singhvi continues to read the deed..One person is specialised in a special status : Singhvi continues to read the deed..What is the true intent? That Mr Luthra should be thrown out and firm should continue? : Singhvi.There's a 20 year history and goodwill before this deed : Singhvi.Other than RKL, specially RKL is happening everywhere in the deed : Singhvi.Singhvi continues to read the deed..There should be an unequal parting but with honour.. that's all I'm saying: Singhvi.Singhvi continues to read..MS cannot review the performance of RKL. The court has seen the reverse : Singhvi.Even I something like age, they make a difference of 80 and 75 : Singhvi.The partnership is not at all. Termination and dissolution is only by RKL and none other by 90 days notice: Singhvi.They say the power is to terminate the deed and not Saraf.. if this is accepted the provision is useless: Singhvi.RKL can terminate Mr Saraf for conditions mentioned in the deed. It is not Mr Saraf's argument that he can do the same Luthra : Singhvi.This clause has to be seen contextually.. Luthra can issue notice. The future should be continuation of the firm with Mr Luthra and honourable exit of Mr Saraf..(if termination is excessive) he may take Rs 10 instead of Rs 5 : Singhvi.One of their argument is that you can't terminate me (Saraf) at all. The entire consequences would be completely distorted: Singhvi.One of their argument is that you can't terminate me (Saraf) at all. The entire consequences would be completely distorted: Singhvi.Termination notice and dissolution notice can only be issued by Mr Luthra.. it is one sided. Lets us be clear on that : Singhvi.This is a two person deed. If you say I terminate, what happens? : Court.You will induct more persons, like I did. So that partnership doesn't become a sole proprietorship: Singhvi.On October 7, I got two new chaps and terminated Saraf : Singhvi.When you bring in two more partners, there has to be a new deed : Court .A supplementary deed was prepared : Counsel.Only Luthra has the power to induct out of his own share: Singhvi.Important thing is that the Court now has the scheme of the Partnership which is "only Luthra" and not Saraf : Singhvi.Surviving party is not who has been terminated or is issuing the notice.. that's why induction of new partners.. which anyway had to happen because it is a two person firm : Singhvi.Remaining partners would continue to run the firm. The idea is that the firm to run .. with Mr Luthra minus Mr Saraf: Singhvi.Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan fills in for Singhvi after he excuses himself for 5 mins..Advocate Haripriya continues to read the deed. .The deed contemplates a situation where MS is asked to leave the firm : Haripriya.In section 9, the only plea he takes is that you can't terminate me under Clause 8. He doesn't say you can't terminate at all .. in rejoinder a new argument is taken up : Haripriya.We've covered all these clauses : Court.These clauses will be relevant when we go back to the judgement: Haripriya.Single judge found the power to terminate but not to terminate MS. It is not borne out of the deed : Haripriya.When you say termination, what does it mean in terms of the Partnership Act: Court .It's expulsion. Termination is expulsion under under the deed : Haripriya.Law is subject to our contract. When you ask someone to leave, it is nothing but expulsion: Haripriya.RKL has the power to induct equity partners. The only consequence is that they may not have managerial rights: Haripriya.The dispute in the firm started because Mr Saraf refused to dilute his share pro rata: Haripriya.If you want to induct, the other person is not agreeable then the relationship will not be there: Court .He may not have managerial rights but he will still have equity : Haripriya .What does it mean in law: Court.He's an equity partner who does not have the right to manage the firm : Haripriya.It is an exception created in the deed. Today there are two equity partners and after termination of Mr Saraf, the from continues with those three : Haripriya.The deed contemplates partnership with or without management rights : Haripriya.Haripriya continues to read the deed..Termination and dissolution are not the same: Haripriya.Single judge has interpreted it to mean that RKL can terminate leading to dissolution. This is not correct: Haripriya.If one party breaches, it doens't mean that the entire firm would get dissolved: Haripriya.Party giving notice continues with the firm : Haripriya.What continues when there are two firms? : Court .Even if RKL had not inducted new partners, he would have continued with the assets and leaving party would be entitled to some amount given he doens't compete. Sole proprietorship will continue: Haripriya.Deed provides what happens in dissolution. Here two more partners are there. Dissolution doens't arise : Haripriya.Eventuality if dissolution doens't arise. Mr Luthra is continuing with two partners: Haripriya.Goodwill has to be given. It is compensation for non compete : Haripriya.Not only is it clear that there is power to terminate and it gives certain criteria for its exercise : Haripriya.Haripriya continues to read the deed..Single judge has taken the view that there is no termination of partner. This is not borne out of the deed. Even if one party is terminated, the firm continues : Haripriya.If the conditions of termination are not contested, what should be the interim order .. you address on that. We thought giving work online should serve the purpose: Court.Even if we give physical access, it is unworkable.. maybe some people can beat each other up. But problem will be the same. We don't understand what all this will serve. We have foreseen, it would not work out : Court.Tell us how to restrain them. That's all we are required to do: Court .Armed gentlemen (at L&L office).. only place other than Afganistan..have to be removed. There's surveillance (on who is interacting with Saraf).. : Tripathi .This can't be controlled.. (come with) some workable solution.. : Court.We've offered Rs 15 crore: Singhvi .Photocopy was sent: Tripathi .If you want, we can send in one hour: Singhvi.If cheque bounces you can sue under Section 138: Singhvi .Singhvi contends that the other party doesn't want to settle .We are going around in an uneasy arrangement. This firm will be a shadow of itself by March, April. Third party perception can't be controlled: Singhvi.We can't live together. Divorce is the only option. Intention is not to defame him : Singhvi .We suggested an option on numbers and gave a formula. With that kind of talk, it doesn't help .. substantial sum of money in the interim and even more substantial in the award : Tripathi.Tripathi suggests that Mr AS Chandhiok intervene and finish it off. .I will speak. : Chandhiok .Try your best. It is not looking good anymore : Court.Together (Mr Chandhiok and Mr Arvind Nigam) they can sort it out : Tripathi.Hearing adjourned till February 17.

Rajiv vs Mohit Saraf: Come back with a workable solution, it's not looking good anymore: Delhi High Court [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories