The partnership between L&L Partners' Founding Partner Rajiv Luthra and Senior Partner Mohit Saraf is an "an unequal marriage" in which the former retained certain special rights, argued Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi before the Delhi High Court today.."The deed makes the other person (Saraf) respectable but less dominant", Singhvi claimed as he asserted that "non-even-handedness" was the spirit of the partnership deed consciously accepted by both the parties. .As an instance of dominance, Singhvi cited provisions on Luthra's power to appraise Saraf's performance, to induct new partners even in case of disagreement, and to terminate the partnership, among others..He added, ."Wherever there is a deadlock, there is a one-way street in my favour. We are not here under Article 14 to judge even-handedness. In the interest of the firm, we agreed to to this...Non even-handedness runs throughout the deed. Whether you like it or not, the equation is spelt out."Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.The submissions were made before a Single Judge Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao in Saraf's plea concerning his removal from L&L Partners..Not a master-servant relationship, both are co-founders: Mohit Saraf tells Delhi High Court in plea against Rajiv Luthra.Singhvi pointed out that the thrust of Saraf's case was that it was Luthra who was out of the partnership, because of his alleged voluntary retirement.On the contrary, Singhvi asserted that Luthra legally and rightfully terminated the partnership of Saraf and that he, in fact, never intended to retire from the law firm. .Accusing Saraf of putting words in Luthra's mouth, Singhvi argued that Luthra's conduct and approach over the months was not of someone who intended to leave the law firm. ."Assuming that in my moment of pain...I said that I want to leave. Can the court grant relief on such a stray sentence?", he questioned. .Singhvi reiterated that to exit the firm, Luthra had the power to either withdraw himself from the firm or retire, but Saraf had no power to evict, terminate, or expel Luthra. .Singhvi further submitted that in its present jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court could not grant any relief, as was being prayed for. He said,."Section 9 is not available unless position on the ground is crystal clear...The Court's order will be a semi-permanent decree. Section 9 petitioner cannot ask the Court to act like a suit court...The Court should not forget the approach in Section 9. This case wants a new status quo. Luthra & Luthra without Luthra...".Duirng the course of the submissions, Singhvi also contended that Saraf's plea should be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. .The hearing in the case will continue tomorrow. .Last month, the two senior-most partners were referred to mediation before Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu. After the talks failed, the Court decided to hear and adjudicate the matter itself.