Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeLawMohit Saraf v. Rajiv Luthra: Delhi High Court refers dispute between to...

Mohit Saraf v. Rajiv Luthra: Delhi High Court refers dispute between to mediation

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Saraf after the litigation arm of the firm that was set up by him along with Luthra, Chandhoke, Sharma and the late Sondhi in 2003, was dissolved in July this year. The plea stated that these partners acted together and “wrongfully and illegally expelled” him from the firm, thereby preventing him from conducting its business and affairs.

In March 2021, a dispute and arbitration notice was sent by Saraf to the respondents and Sondhi suggesting that the arbitral tribunal constituted in relation to disputes between him and Luthra be invited to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen in relation to the L&L Partners litigation firm as well.

The following month, Saraf stated, the partners sought to initiate settlement discussions with him. However, after Sondhi passed away in January 2022, the Partners delayed the same, due to which another notice was sent to them. The new notice stated that the partners had illegally distributed the profits of Luthra & Luthra Law Offices Litigation without settling Saraf’s claims and that there was an attempt to distribute his shares in the firm.

Saraf further said that the according to information available with him, Chandhoke and Sharma acquired a new office in South Delhi, were actively soliciting clients, and were attempting to transfer the existing business and property of the firm to the new office, which directly affects his rights.

The plea further alleged that when they met to resolve the dispute in April and May this year, Saraf was offered only a meagre/paltry sum, which he refused.

At this juncture, Sondhi’s legal heirs approached the Court staking a claim to be inducted into the firm’s equity partnership. They had also prayed that the 18.5% equity stake held by Sondhi not be diluted by the existing Partners. A judgment was passed in that matter appointing Justice Gupta as the sole arbitrator.

Source: Barandbench

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments