- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
L&L Partnership dispute is done and dusted, almost The bitter litigation between two L&L Partners has been settled with Mohit Saraf getting ₹52 crore and a bank guarantee of ₹25 crore as an interim settlement The bitter litigation between L&L Partners founder Rajiv Luthra and senior partner Mohit Saraf is almost settled with Luthra informing the Delhi High Court that he...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
L&L Partnership dispute is done and dusted, almost
The bitter litigation between two L&L Partners has been settled with Mohit Saraf getting ₹52 crore and a bank guarantee of ₹25 crore as an interim settlement
The bitter litigation between L&L Partners founder Rajiv Luthra and senior partner Mohit Saraf is almost settled with Luthra informing the Delhi High Court that he would pay monetary compensation for Saraf's exit from the law firm.
Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan who appeared for Rajiv Luthra along with Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra informed the Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula that ₹52 crore would be paid within the next 24 hours.
Advocate Raghvendra Singh appeared in the court on behalf of Saraf had on Monday demand of ₹50 crore as interim settlement amount and ₹250 crore as the final settlement amount.
A draft order passed by the HC today said that Rajiv Luthra shall, before Saturday, pay to Mohit Saraf a sum of ₹52 crore and furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee of a sum of ₹25 crore, encashable in terms of the award of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating disputes between the parties while Saraf shall cede any right of reinstatement to L&L firms.
The order said that the payments in terms of profits of the firm, etc. due to Saraf to be subject to the outcome of arbitral proceedings.
Saraf shall be entitled to set up his independent legal practice either alone or in partnership with anyone else. He shall be entitled to describe himself as a former Partner of L&L, but the name of the new practice shall not have Luthra or L&L as part thereof.
Luthra and Saraf will be allowed to compete for clients, advocates and staff of L&L Mumbai and Delhi. Whichsoever clients of L&L Mumbai and Delhi decide to move to the legal practice of Saraf, shall be entitled to do so. L&L shall shift the data related to those clients to the new firm and will not retain any of this data.
New emails IDs to be given for those who join Saraf. Clients will be informed of these email IDs. The electronic identity of Saraf as L&L Partner shall be blocked on receipt of payment.
Rajiv Luthra's demand that while Saraf can take credit only for the work he had done, he cannot take credit for what the firm had done did not get a favourable response from the court, with the HC saying that it is difficult to draw a line since as partners whatever work is done is attributed to the firm.
Saraf had moved the HC in October last year following his termination as partner by Luthra. Since then the litigation witnessed several interesting twists and turns before the terms of Saraf's exit were finalised Tuesday bringing curtains down on the case. The only window for any further dispute can only be on arbitration over profits due to Saraf.