Mohit Saraf v. Rajiv Luthra: Delhi High Court asks mediator to complete process by November 1; no interim relief granted

The Delhi High Court today ordered that the mediation between L&L Partners' Founder Rajiv Luthra and Senior Partner Mohit Saraf be completed by November 1..The Bench of Justice V Kameswara Rao stated that Luthra would be given the opportunity to file a reply to Saraf's plea after that, if the mediation fails. No interim relief was granted by the Court today..Appearing for Saraf today, Senior Advocate Parag Tripathi again pointed out that his client has been frozen out of the firm.."What will be the disadvantage caused to them if I'm allowed access? Of course accounts can be maintained. Luthra is still running the show. Why should I be shut out? It is the money which will be paid to the firm. I'm not taking it.".Taking the Court through the partnership deed, Tripathi argued that Saraf was entitled to function as a partner for three months. "I cannot suffer a civil death for the purpose of meditation", he said..Claiming that Saraf should be reinstated as a partner and allowed to work for the firm, Tripathi said,"This is a big firm. It has a reputation and total turnover of 250 crore. All the youngsters will leave the firm. They were handpicked by me. It is for thh benefit of no one.".Backing Tripathi's arguments, Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam said,"This is not a partnership at will. The deed does not provide for expulsion of a partner."He informed the Court that expulsion can only take place under the grounds mentioned in clause (8) of the deed, or on dissolution of the firm. ."For 20 years I've given my blood and toil to the firm. People may not know me on the litigation side. I have been managing the firm for years."Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam.Nigam concluded by asking the Court to allow some interim arrangement pending further hearing..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi then made arguments on behalf of Luthra. He began by saying,"It is a strange case where we agreed to mediation. They agreed and no objection was made. Now there is complete rethink and review. They are asking for interim orders on each day after we agreed (otherwise).".Taking objection to the seeking of interim orders while mediation was ongoing, Singhvi said,."Lawyers can use statesman-like language, but it is the client that matters. This person made 23 partners in October after retiring me...from equity taken from me. Who fired the first shot?"Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.He insisted that the Court cannot pass any orders without allowing Luthra to file a reply. He went on to state,"In 1997, I admit him with 25% and make a firm. Why is the firm called Luthra & Luthra? Why not Saraf & Luthra? The share was increased later. I don't expect gratitude, but I expect the truth. This is the worst form of backstabbing.".Singhvi reiterated that Luthra was the sole owner of the firm, and that the partnership deed had a unilateral termination clause in Luthra's favour. Countering the argument that the firm's lawyers would leave if Saraf were to be removed, Singhvi said,"There are 400 lawyers. Not one has said that I want to leave.".Justice Rao then said to the counsel for Saraf,"You argued, they also argued. You said you are ready for mediation, they also agreed. They say they have to file the reply. I recorded that you wanted status quo ante. It was expected that inter se disputes would be settled. To insist upon an interim order.. .you say that I don't want mediation and I will ask for a reply.".Tripathi then suggested,"Meditation is going on...let this work be given to the mediator. The mediator can tell what can be the interim measure."He added that the Court can pass an interim order in aid of the mediation. However, Justice Rao replied,"If I have to consider your relief, opportunity has to be given to them to file a reply.".Senior Advocate AS Chandhiok, appearing for Luthra, suggested,"If mediation continues, on November 2, a reply can be filed.".The Court then said that it would take a final call on November 2. It is also stated that the parties should go to the mediation with an open mind. The mediator has been requested to complete the process by November 1..If the mediation fails, the Court will take up the matter for hearing on November 3..Read the Order: