Rajiv Luthra v. Mohit Saraf: LIVE UPDATES from Delhi High Court hearing

Delhi High Court is hearing Rajiv Luthra's appeal against order staying the termination of Mohit Saraf from L&L Partnership. The hearing is progressing before Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Luthra: I want to get through the entire rejoinder (in two sittings). I would like to have an interrupted flow as far as other side is concerned.I may just go a tail end after Dr Singhvi finishes: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra.Single judge appears to fault me by saying that they are equal partners and there is no master servant: Singhvi.This is as if our case is of master-servant. This appears to be a straw man argument set up by the respondent. I said I had additional rights. Rights are not equal. It doens't mean one is master, one is servant: Singhvi.Additional rights are clear from three clauses. I've supplied a compilation : Singhvi.They are basically..makes it clear that I have right to appraise Saraf and alone have the right to terminate. Partnership is the paramount document. If it gives me more rights, doens't mean there is master-servant relationship: Singhvi.It is a fallacy is law to think that because one party has right to terminate or expel, it doens't not detract at all from the partnership: Singhvi.It is directly contrary to partnership law: Singhvi.Singhvi takes the court through Single Judge order..Queen bee and worker bees.. I never argued master-servant. It is an additional rights case. It doesn't mean there is no partnership: Singhvi.Single judge has gone back and forth in contradictory order: Singhvi.He holds prima facie I have the power of terminating Saraf. Para 33. This is a clear finding in my favour. He then goes on to say that in view of remaining part of clause, the termination power is for persons other than Saraf: Singhvi.7A makes no such distinction. The Single Judge finds termination power but not qua one man, Saraf: Singhvi.This interpretation is contrary to terms of the contract: Singhvi.He takes the termination power and then circumscribes it : Singhvi as he continues to read.There are independent powers of termination. So what if I have independent power of performance review: Singhvi.Where is termination linked to termination of those who come through my equity : Singhvi.He truncates 7A by reference to 9. This is re writing the contract: Singhvi.We are now getting into semantic exercise: Singhvi as he reads single judge order.In partnership deed, there is a word termination and it shall be with RKL, nobody can rewrite those clauses: Singhvi.How can court terminate the power of termination and supercede it with expulsion?: Singhvi..You have not shown that termination is a prohibited activity: Singhvi..There are errors on the face of the judgement: Singhvi.Terminate can't have different meanings for different clauses: Singhvi.People used termination as commonsense. We used termination and expulsion as one thing. It doens't mean termination is obliterated: Singhvi.It is not mere word of documents.. the overall holistic picture has to be seen. Either they have to used interchangeably or expand power: Singhvi.The substance of the document determine its power. By changing the word, you don't change the substance: Singhvi.I can't understand this : Singhvi on Single Judge's finding on absence of explicit power to expel.Appraisal doesn't get subsumed by termination clause: Singhvi.Singhvi reads the relevant portion of the deed..This is looking at the contract not holistically: Singhvi.Termination is what termination says: Singhvi.Performance appraisal is a different activity. Induction of new partners is a new activity. You can't jumble all up: Singhvi.From this scheme of the deed, you can't say that there is no termination power with respect to Saraf: Singhvi.Singhvi comes to the finding of absence of good faith..One reason why Single Judge says absence of good faith is because I didn't challenge letter of 12/10/2020. Saraf says I've been retired : Singhvi.Is it not ironical that one partner telling the other you've compulsorily retired, Mr Saraf fires the first salvo, but that is not lack of good faith. I don't have to challenge it in section 9: Singhvi.This is patent bad faith.. : Singhvi.We're talking of good faith. Look at the irony: Singhvi.He retires me. His retirement concept is the alter ego of termination: Singhvi.On the same night, he (Saraf) appoints 23 new partners: Singhvi.It is not fair to allow him to argue what should have been argued as opening statement: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for Saraf.In his dictionary, compulsory retirement is termination. Then the firm should stand dissolved. But what is most interesting is that on the same, I say I've not retired.. : Singhvi.My grounds of termination on 13/10 are varied : Singhvi.Neither the court nor any adhesive join the unjoinable. The path to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions: Singhvi as he suggests that some ad hoc money be paid pending Arbitration..It can't be that Luthra & Luthra is run by Saraf. Take partners.. living together is worst form of toxic marriage: Singhvi.It is not as if power to terminate is given at will to Luthra. Whether such a contingency has arisen or not, has to be seen by the Arbitrator: Court.It is not going to be sit out : Singhvi .All of us are part of one fraternity. We are all feeling very bad..at this stage we don't want (to say who is wrong). We don't want to comment on anyone's conduct. I've never seen Mr Saraf but he's also a lawyer : Court.Let them continue for six months.. : Court .We are not wanting to curtail arguments. If you put your minds together.. : Court .I don't think it will work.. Mr Salve told me he also tried his best : Singhvi .We are only wanting a working arrangement: Court.Let me back to it in law and equity on the next date : Singhvi .Singhvi continues with his submissions..Singhvi details the material breaches. Finding of Single judge that I didn't challenge 12/10.. I have denied it on the same say. You appointed 23 more. How is it that my non-challenge makes out an injunction in Section 9?: Singhvi.This (notice) is extended four times but neither extension or notice is challenged by Saraf. My submission is judge the merit and not whether someone challenged it or not: Singhvi.In a two member firm, the terminating partner will always be interested. Nobody is saying power of termination is given to Saraf: Singhvi.After 6/1/2020 when I sent him notice, all my replies are saying that I will stay and you have to leave : Singhvi.From Jan 2020 this is my stand. Now you're saying, I've retired. Luthra & Luthra can't be run by Saraf: Singhvi.From Jan 2020 this is my stand. Now you're saying, I've retired. Luthra & Luthra can't be run by Saraf: Singhvi.My case is .. I've cited clauses (to show power of termination). Law permits implied power but I don't have to go that far : Singhvi.Court proceeds to adjourn the hearing. Hearing adjourned till April 6.

Rajiv Luthra v. Mohit Saraf: LIVE UPDATES from Delhi High Court hearing

Related Stories