RAJIT K LUTHRA  Vs MOHIT SARAF

FAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 1 of 11
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 13/2021 , CM No.2329/2021 (for permission to
file lengthy list of dates) & CM No.2330/2021 (for stay)
RAJI V K LUTHRA ….. Appellant
Through: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mr. A.S.
Chandhiok, Mr. Gopal
Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Advs. with Ms.
Haripriya Padmanabhan, Ms. Pooja
Dhar, Mr. Zeeshan Diwan & Mr.
Shrutunjay Bhardwaj, Advs.

Versus
MOHIT SARAF ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Mr. Vikas
Singh & Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr.
Advs. with Mr. Promod Nair, Mr.
Apoorv Tripathi, Mr. Srinivasan
Ramaswamy, Mr. Raghvendra Singh,
Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Mr. Shailendera
Singh & Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 22.01.2021

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The appeal impugns the judgment dated 18th January, 2021 of the
Single Judge , allowing OMP (I) (COMM) No.339/2020 , under Section 9 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 , filed by the responde nt.
2. The appeal was filed and on urgent mentioning got listed yesterday
and was received by us , post court commencement hours and was taken up
for hearing at about 1 600 hours. The senior counsels for the appellant
2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 2 of 11
sought stay of the operation of the impugned judgment dated 18th January,
2021 . The senior counsels for the respondents appearing on advance notice
opposed the grant of stay.
3. Considering that the disputes are amongst advocates of this Court, we
started hearing of the appeal yesterday its elf by limiting the time of
arguments on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent to two hours
each. The senior counsel s for the appellant were heard for about fifteen
minutes yesterday and the further hearing adjourned to 29th January, 2021.
The Single Judge , while allowing the Section 9 petition filed by the
respondent, on request of the counsels for the appellant , had directed his
judgment to remain in abeyance till today. We thus posted the hearing qua
arrangement if any to be made during the pendency of this appeal, to today.
4. We have today heard the senior counsel s for the appellant as well the
senior counsels for the respondent. As aforesaid , we have already
commenced hearing of the appeal and intend to conclude the hearing and
pronounce o rders , soon. We have thus considered , whether till then there
should be stay of the impugned judgment or any other order, of course
without prejudice to the final adjudication of the appeal.
5. The senior counsels for the appellant have contended that th e state of
affairs which has been ordered to be altered vide the impugned judgment has
been prevalent since October, 2020, with the petition under Section 9 having
been filed on 15th October, 2020 or thereabout. It is argued that before the
Single Judge , there was no ad -interim order and now that the hearing of the
appeal is underway, the said status which has been continuing for the last
four months should be permitted to continue till the appeal is decided. It is
2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 3 of 11
urged that changing the status may lead to further acrimony and disputes
between the parties.
6. We are however unable to agree with the aforesaid contention. The
jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act , which was invoked by
the respondent , is a jurisdiction to order interim measure s preceding or
during or after the arbitral proceedings. The disputes between the parties ,
else are to be decided by arbitration. When a Single Judge of this Court,
after going through the pleadings and after hearing lengthy arguments, has
devised an int erim arrangement between the parties, the said interim
arrangement ordinarily should continue during the hearing of the appeal and
there should be no two stages i.e. of first hearing for ad -interim relief in the
appeal and thereafter whether the interim ar rangement made by the Single
Judge requires any interference; of course , if the appellate court finds the
interim arrangement so worked out to be perverse and capable of more
mischief, the appellate court would be entitled to , at the stage of admission
of the appeal itself , pass appropriate orders. The contention of the senior
counsels for the respondent , that the scope of interference in an appeal under
Section 37 is even otherwise limited, has merit. We have thus confined the
hearing today to one hour o nly and express appreciation that the counsels
abided by the time so limited. The discussion hereunder is thus in the
aforesaid background.
7. The appellant and the respondent, being advocates, were / are partners
of a law firm in the name and style of “ L&L Partners, New Delhi”. On
disputes arising between them, the respondent filed the petition under
Section 9 , from which this appeal arises, claiming the following interim
2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 4 of 11
measures:
“a) Stay the notice issued by the Respondent No.1 to the
Petitioner by w ay of email sent on 13.10.2020 purportedly
terminating the Petitioner’s partnership with L&L Partners, New
Delhi and all actions taken consequent thereto;
b) Restrain the Respondent No.1 from directly or indirectly,
interfering with the management and/or a dministration, and from
participating in the affairs of the firm L&L Partners, New Delhi;
c) Restrain the Respondent No.1 from holding himself out as,
or representing himself to be a partner in L&L Partners, New
Delhi;
d) Direct the Respondent No.1 to fort hwith handover to the
Petitioner all assets and properties of the firm L&L Partners,
New Delhi, currently within his possession, including ownership
and control over the website www.luthra.com;
e) Restrain the Respondent No.1 from accessing or using any
of the assets of the firm, including but not limited to restraining
the Respondent No.1 from withdrawing any monies, or
authorizing any payments out of, or otherwise operating bank
accounts held by the firm, without the consent of the Petitioner;
f) Restrain the Respondents from interdicting the Petitioner’s
rights to conduct and manage the affairs of the firms L&L
Partners, New Delhi, L&L Partners, Mumbai and L&L Partners
Litigation, New Delhi;
g) Direct the Respondents to forthwith restore the Petitioner’s
access to his firm email id – MSaraf@luthra.com and the
Petitioner’s name as being part of the management on the
websites of the firms, L&L Partners, New Delhi, L&L Partners,
Mumbai and L&L Partners, Litigation, and further restrain the
Respondents from di rectly or indirectly, preventing or otherwise
restricting the Petitioner’s access to and use of the Delhi Firm’s
IT infrastructure such as personal laptop, desktop, email with the
domain name @luthra.com, servers, database, software
subscriptions;
h) Direc t the Respondents to forthwith restore the access of
all employees and staff to, and enable use of the IT infrastructure
such as personal laptop, desktop, emails with the domain
2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 5 of 11
name@luthra.com, servers, database, software subscriptions,
whose access has b een drastically blocked since 13.10.2020;
i) Direct the Respondent No.1 to remove the ‘bouncers’
stationed by him at the office of the Delhi Firm at the 1st and 9th
Floors, Ashoka Estate, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi –
110001 and further restrain the said Respondents from
restricting any manner the Petitioner’s ingress and egress to the
office space at 1st and 9th Floors, Ashoka Estate, 9, Barakhamba
Road, New Delhi -110001;
j) Restrain the Respondents from causing any disturbance or
damage to the office ca bin of the Petitioner;
k) Direct the Respondent No.1 to cease and desist from
entering the offices at 1st and 9th Floors, Ashoka Estate, 9,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110001, soliciting or contacting
the employees, retainers, or clients of L&L Partners, New Delhi;
1) Restrain the Respondent No.1 from making any
representation to any of the clients or retainers or employees of
any of the firms, L&L Partners, New Delhi, L&L Partners,
Mumbai or L&L Partners, Litigation, New Delhi, and from
making any represe ntation, communication, filing, applications
etc. to any regulatory authorities including the Registrar of
Firms, or to the media to the effect or on the basis that the
Petitioner’s partnership has been terminated, or that the
Petitioner has ceased to be a partner of any of the said firms, or
that the petitioner is not authorized to represent the said firms,
and further direct the Respondent No.1 that if any such
communication has been made, then to forthwith withdraw the
same;
m) Restrain the Respondent N o.1 from using the name
“Luthra & Luthra” or “L&L Partners” or any variation thereof,
for carrying on any business competing with the business of L&L
Partners, New Delhi;
n) Grant ex parte ad interim reliefs in terms of the above;
o) Pass such order and an y further other order as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”

2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 6 of 11
The Single Judge , vide the impugned judgment, on a prima facie view
of the matter, has held the termination by the appellant of th e respondent
from the partnership, in terms of e -mail dated 13th October, 2020, is in
violation of the Partnership Deed and the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and
keeping in view the mandate of Section 12 of the Act , has held the
respondent to have a right t o take part in the conduct of the business of the
law firm and further held that keeping away the respondent from the
partnership business shall be to his prejudice , if he finally succeeds in the
arbitration proceedings. The Single Judge has accordingly d irected stay of
the operation of the e -mail dated 13th October, 2020 issued by the appellant
terminating the respondent from the partnership.
8. We have enquired from the senior counsels for the respondent, how
the order of stay , as granted by the Single Judge , will address the grievance s
as evident from the prayer paragraph reproduced above, with which the
Section 9 petition was filed by the respondent. We have further enquired ,
whether not in the absence of specific directions as sought in the prayer
paragraph aforesaid, there will be disputes at the spot i.e. at the offices of the
law firm, as to what each party is required to do or not do in pursuance to
the impugned judgment. To illustrate , we have enquired what will the
respondent do if restrained f rom entering the office s pursuant to the order .
9. Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent states
that the respondent will take the assistance of the police for entering the
office.
10. That is precisely the situation which ought n ot to arise and should be
averted at a n advocate‟s office. Advocates , who advise others and
2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 7 of 11
dispassionately seek legal resolution of the disputes of others , should not be
seen as resorting to police aid against each other. We have thus asked the
senior c ounsels for the respondent , what restraints against both, appellant as
well as respondent, ought to be ordered for preservation of status quo.
11. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate for the respondent has argued
that, (i) the offices of the non -litigation portfolio of the law firm were / are
on the 9th floor and of the litigation portfolio on the 1st floor of Ashoka
Estate Building at Barakhamba Road , New Delhi ; the respondent has always
had his personal office on the 9th floor and the appellant on th e 1st floor;
however the appellant for some time past has shifted his office also to the 9th
floor; (ii) both respondent and the appellant can amicably continue to work
from their respective chambers / offices , even if on the same floor, as have
been doing in the past; (iii) both could be restrained from addressing any
adverse communication prejudicial to the law firm , to the clients or to the
outside world; (iv) both should sent out a joint message, to allay
apprehensions of nearly 300 lawyers and 200 para legal staff of the firm; (v)
both should observe full civility in the matter of running the affairs of the
firm and should not interfere with the functioning of each other; (vi) the
appellant should be directed to restore to name of the respondent as part ner
on the website of the law firm; (vii) the appellant should be restrained from
interfering with the access of the respondent to his clients whom he has been
servicing in the past; and, (viii) both should exercise their powers as partners
directly and no t acting through any other person.

2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 8 of 11
12. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, S enior Advocate for the appellant , in support of his
contention that the impugned judgment directing restoration of status quo
ante as existing prior to the filing of the petition under Section 9 s hould be
stayed during the pendency of the appeal , has argued that (i) it is not as if the
law firm has suffer ed in any manner owing to non -participation of the
respondent for the last four months ; since the filing of the petition under
Section 9, four new partners and forty new Associates from other law firm s
have joined L&L Partners, New Delhi ; (ii) the gross earnings of the firm for
the quarter ending December, 2020 , are far more than that for the previous
quarter; (iii) it is thus not as if the responde nt is suffering any prejudice as a
result of ouster; (iv) restor ing status quo ante would lead to further disputes
between the parties; (v) the respondent has already nominated his arbitrator
and the appellant also has nominated an arbitrator and the Arbit ral Tribunal
can also deal with the interim arrangement; (vi) it is not as if the respondent
is restrained from practicing law and can continue to practice law , though
not in the name of L&L Partners, New Delhi ; and, (vii) the appellant is also
willing to let go one or two person s who were closely associated with the
respondent in the law firm .
13. Having found the respondent to have claimed a specific relief in the
Section 9 petition, of restoration of access to the law firm e -mail ID and use
of law firm‟s IT infrastructure and being further of the view that in the
prevalent pandemic large part of the legal work even otherwise is online, we
have understood from Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Advocate for the
appellant , how the same works . Ms. Haripriya Pad manabhan, Advocate for
the appellant has explained that granting access to the respondent to the e –
2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 9 of 11
mail ID of the law firm would give access to the respondent to the entire
database of the law firm relating to all affairs whatsoever of the law firm.
14. The senior counsel for the appellant has contended that granting such
access would make the respondent privy to communications of the law firm
with all its clients and which is capable of harm and mischief ; it is argued
that the clients of the law firm woul d also object to an unauthorized person
as the respondent , so having access to their data. It is also argued that there
would be a fear of the respondent divulging the said information to others , to
the prejudice of the appellant and the law firms ‟ client s.
15. We have considered the aforesaid arguments and are of the view that
for the time being the implementation of the impugned judgment be
confined in the manner as hereinbelow provided :
A. The appellant is directed to forthwith restore the respondent ‟s
access to the law firm‟s e -mail ID MSaraf@luthra.com and the
appellant is restrained from directly or indirectly preventing or
otherwise restricting the respondent‟s access to and use of the
Delhi firm ‟s IT infrastructure such as personal laptop, desktop,
e-mail, domain name @luthra.com, servers, database, software
subscriptions; however the respondent shall be entitled to the
said access , not from the office s of the law firm but remotely
from his home or from any other place he may desire and his
persona l laptop and desktop if not already with the respondent
shall be forthwith delivered to the respondent through his
advocate.

2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 10 of 11
B. Both , appellant and the respondent shall use all the information
on such system of the law firm for the bona fide use of and in
the benefit of the law firm and are restrained from putting the
information on the said database including the client
information to any other use and are also restrained from
divulging the same to any other person or use the same to the
prejudice of the l aw firm.
C. The appellant shall also stand restrained from directly or
indirectly interfering with the respondent servicing the clients
of the law firm.
D. Both appellant and the respondent are restrained from , (i)
making any communication in any manner whatsoever to any
person , prejudicial to the affairs of the law firm or prejudicial to
each other (save before the Court / Arbitral Tribunal); ( ii)
inducting any new partners / associates or any other personnel
and / or from adding to a regular financial l iability of the law
firm; ( iii) doing any other act towards changing the status as
existing immediately prior to the filing of the petition and if
already changed since then , as existing today ; and, (iv) from
interfering in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly in
performance by each other or by any other advocate or
personnel of the law firm, of their respective roles in discharge
of their duties and in servicing the clients and affairs of the law
firm.

2021:DHC:251-DBFAO(OS)(COMM) No.13/2021 Page 11 of 11
16. We however clarify that the respo ndent , under orders of the Single
Judge or under this arrangement , shall not be entitled to physically access
the office s of the law firm as we are of the pinion that the same , as of today,
is likely to lead to an ugly situation.
17. The appellant to also , by the next date, on affidavit, furnish accounts
of the law firm, with effect from 13th October, 2020 till date, in a sealed
cover.
18. We also implore upon the parties to instead of their personal hats,
wear their lawyer ‟s hat and instead of airing thei r disputes in public and in
the Court , attempt to either revive the partnership or amicably part ways in
the spirit of give and take and realize that what is going on, in the long run
will not benefit either . This is the least expected by the client s of the law
firm from their advocates and advisors.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J
JANUARY 22, 2021
„gsr‟ ..
2021:DHC:251-DB