End of L&L Partners' dispute insight with parties agreeing to interim payment

End of L&L Partners' dispute insight with parties agreeing to interim payment

Lawyers for Rajiv Luthra agree in principle over demand for payment of ₹50 crore by Mohit Saraf to quit the firm

End of India's one of the most keenly observed litigation is in sight with stakeholders of law firm L&L Partners veering around to a monetary settlement to the partnership dispute between Rajiv Luthra and Mohit Saraf.

Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra were in agreement with the demand for the interim payment when the matter came up before the Delhi High Court on Monday.

Advocate Raghvendra Singh, representing Mohit Saraf, spelt out the terms under which Saraf would quit the firm and withdraw his case. This included payment of ₹50 crore as interim payment and a possible ₹250 crore as the final settlement amount.

The matter came up for hearing before the bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula.

"The firm has around ₹70 crore sitting in the bank account accrued over the last fiscal year. I have not received anything from this...I am asking 28.54 crore, which is my entitlement to profits," Raghvendra Singh informed the court.

"In principle, what Singh is saying sounds okay. The only issue will be on the figure. I endorse what I think is the spirit behind Singh's suggestion," Singhvi said and sought a day to discuss the issue.

The HC bench will hear the matter on Tuesday when advocates representing Luthra will spell out their reply to the payment demand.

Saraf had moved the court in October last year after his termination from the law firm by Luthra.

Some bitterness was evident during the court hearing when Singhvi referred to a letter written by Saraf in response to an application filed by Luthra

The discussions arose during the Court's hearing of an application filed by Luthra, who took objection to a letter sent by Saraf.

"Shouldn't he (Saraf) have the decency not to shoot off letters at such a time, when the Court has reserved the order in the matter? This shows that there has to be separation of the two. My earlier words are a self-fulfilling prophecy," Singhvi said.

Singhvi had called for a "clean break" between Luthra and Saraf.

All previous efforts of mediation between Luthra and Saraf had failed. Senior advocate Harish Salve had agreed to mediate between the two on the court's suggestion but gave up as acrimony between Luthra and Saraf had gone too far, following which a single judge-bench of the HC had stayed Saraf's termination.

Luthra then appealed against the verdict, pointing out "inconsistencies" in the court verdict.