No master-servant with Mohit Saraf but L&L partnership gives Rajiv Luthra additional rights: Abhishek Manu Singhvi tells Delhi High Court

Rajiv Luthra today told the Delhi High Court that although the L&L partnership deed gave him "additional rights", it was not his case that there was a "master-servant" between him and Mohit Saraf. (Rajiv Luthra v. Mohit Saraf).Appearing for Luthra, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "This appears to be a straw man argument set up by the respondent (Mohit Saraf).. Rights are not equal. It doesn't mean one is master, one is servant.".A Division Bench of Justices Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula was hearing Rajiv Luthra's appeal against the order staying the termination of the former from L&L Partnership.."Single judge appears to fault me by saying that they are equal partners and there is no master-servant. This is as if our case is of master-servant..(The deed) makes it clear that I have right to appraise Saraf and I alone have the right to terminate. The partnership is the paramount document. If it gives me more rights, doesn't mean there is a master-servant relationship", Singhvi added..Singhvi also argued that there were errors apparent in the Single Judge's order. .He submitted that while the deed made no such distinction, the Single Judge opined that Luthra's power to terminate partners did not extend to Saraf as it was only limited to partners inducted on his equity.."This interpretation is contrary to the terms of the contract. He takes the termination power and then circumscribes it. There are independent powers of termination. So what if I have independent power of performance review.", Singhvi argued. .Singhvi also contended that under the deed, the word termination was used in "commonsense" and would include expulsion. ."We used termination and expulsion as one thing. It doesn't mean termination is obliterated..It is not a mere word of documents.. the overall holistic picture has to be seen. Either they have to used interchangeably or to expand power.", Singhvi explained..It was also reiterated that Luthra had the explicit power to expel Saraf from the partnership. .Objections were also raised with respect to the Single Judge's finding on the absence of good faith on part of Luthra.."One reason why Single Judge says the absence of good faith is because I didn't challenge a letter of 12/10/2020 (on his retirement). Is it not ironical that one partner is 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..On the same night, he (Saraf) appoints 23 new partners:", Singhvi remarked. .Saraf had 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..Earlier this year, the Court had ordered 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..Following a suggestion made by the Court, Senior Advocate Harish Salve had agreed to mediate between Luthra and Saraf. The same, however, failed to fructify..The matter would be heard next on April 6..Read the complete account of hearing here:.Rajiv Luthra v. Mohit Saraf: LIVE UPDATES from Delhi High Court hearing