Surprising very few people, the mediation between the co-founding partners of L&L Partners, Rajiv Luthra and Mohit Saraf, has apparently yielded no constructive results, as the Delhi high court on Monday ordered Saraf’s Section 9 petition to proceed on Friday (6 November) and Monday (9 November).
According to Delhi high court Justice V Kameswar Rao’s order, Luthra should file a reply to Saraf’s petition by 5pm tomorrow (5 November), after having reviewed a copy of the mediators’ report.
Saraf had originally asked the court to force Luthra to undo his unilateral termination of Saraf, including posting armed guards outside the offices and locking Saraf’s email account.
According to Monday’s order, Saraf’s counsel also requested the deletion all six respondents who were not Luthra (a variety of administrative staff and accounting staff at the firm).
The judge ordered:
To come up for arguments on behalf of petitioner on November 06, 2020 and for the arguments on behalf of the respondent on November 09, 2020.
I take on record that the copy of the report of Ld. Mediator has been filed in the Registry vide diary No.983323/2020. The date of November 03, 2020 stands cancelled.
The road ahead: Potentially long
What this means is that on Friday Saraf’s counsel will again attempt to convince the court that it should restore status quo ante - e.g., declare Luthra’s termination of Saraf ineffective.
On Monday, Luthra’s lawyers will then argue why Luthra had the right under their partnership deed to unilaterally terminate Saraf (which Saraf had contested, claiming that Luthra had actually voluntarily resigned from the partnership).
The court will then pass an order, most likely either declining to pass any interim orders or restoring Saraf to the partnership.
After that, the substance of their dispute and how to separate the two sole equity partners in the corporate partnership would most likely proceed to arbitration, as specified in their partnership deed.
Unless, that result swings things sufficiently one way or another to make either or both parties want to settle rather than continue fighting this through ad hoc arbitration with no clear end in sight (much as the US presidential elections, at present).
Meanwhile, for L&L non-equity partners and fee-earners, the uncertainty continues since Saraf’s purported termination nearly a month ago now, on 13 October.
But at least for L&L fresher hires from college, the long wait will likely be over before the dispute, with most due to join by 12 November).
Comments
Without a stay RKL would have achieved a fait accompli and counsels would also have moved on from MS after realising that MS couldn't get much traction in court.
Basically all RKL needs now is an able lieutenant to replace MS and nobody inside Luthra will (most likely) care anymore about what happened in the past, as long as things go on like in the pas(even though equity remains the ever elusive dream).
When is MS planning to fold in the continued absence of a favourable order?
Kindly understand:
1. RKL is also a corporate lawyer. You must also then compliment him/ his strategy.
2. MS is not his own lawyer. His case has been handed by litigation lawyers.
3. Perhaps RKL has had better litigation support. L&L Litigation has supported RKL.
There are plenty of sub-standard litigation as well as corporate lawyers.
Cannot paint everyone with the same brush.
They don't know how to enforce rights in India, be it civil or criminal.
They don't even know if what they craft is legally tenable.
Corporate lawyers are a joke. [img]https://media2.giphy.com/media/WqdbPTfc0ZuyRN0lAT/200.gif[/img]
As to not knowing what is enforceable or legally tenable, given the case law, there is hardly much a draftsman can do but advise clients that everything is up for a shit show though we believe your case would be sound.
And if you wish to see a real joke, look through the drafting which litigators do. Milord, if it pleaseth your hon’ble lordship, and I be much obliged and will forever humbly be your servant of Milord would be so kind to grant this your humble servant his humble prayers and for which this humble servant shall be forever obliged.
We can't enforce Non Compete, but we will still put it.
We can't arbitrate all disputes, but we will still put it.
We can't exclude jurisdiction of relevant courts, but we will still put it.
We know you can't invest, so we will create a fake structure, which according to our experience, is the 'industry standard'.
There is no argument. You are comparing pleadings with drafts. Drafting pleadings is a tiny bit of their job. Drafting agreements is 70% of ours.
We call it a cute structure at our firm... more a farm these days!
And I know I am being mean but that’s because you and your brethren started it. Corp’s specialisation is not disputes like yours is not transaction imagination and closure, so don’t undermine us and we won’t shit on you. You guys obviously do your work well most times like we do ours well most times. One off everyone screws up, so no point in writing praises about yourself and disses about us.
On the other side, litigators especially those in law firms the less said the better. You ask them to enforce any claim and usually they have no clue. Most of them are hanging out in Khan Market or Colaba when ‘hearings’ are going on.