[BREAKING] Delhi High Court to pronounce its verdict in Mohit Saraf vs Rajiv Luthra on January 18

The Delhi High Court will pronounce its verdict in Mohit Saraf's petition against Rajiv Luthra for his reinstatement as a partner at L&L Partners on Monday, January 18. (Mohit Saraf vs Rajiv Luthra).Order will be pronounced by a Single Judge Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao after it was reserved on December 9, 2020. .Saraf moved the High Court in October last year after he was removed from the L&L partnership by Luthra..In his petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Saraf pressed for the restoration of "last uncontested status" at L&L Partners while the dispute with Luthra is referred to arbitration..Whereas the High Court had initially suggested that the parties refer their dispute to mediation, the matter was back in the Court after mediation talks failed to make any headway..Asserting that there was no master-servent relationship, Saraf argued before the High Court that his ouster from the law firm was illegal and unless the L&L partnership was dissolved, he would continue to be a partner. .Defending his letter accepting Luthra's retirement, Saraf said that Luthra's intention to leave the firm and take the "golden handshake" was visible from the series of letters written by him. .It was also claimed that there was a complete breach of bona fides on the part of Luthra and that the two mandatory 90-day notices under the deed were not served on him for termination of the firm..Rajiv Luthra, on the other hand, argued that the L&L partnership was an "an unequal marriage" in which he retained certain special rights including the right to oust Saraf..While clarifying that he never intended to leave the law firm that he built, Luthra accused Saraf of "unbecoming of a lawyer", leaking confidential information of the firm and sharing private WhatsApp communication with third parties. .Grant of any relief in the petition on account of the admitted position of both parties that they cannot work together anyone. It was also argued that the relief of reinstatement was barred under the Specific Relief Act.