IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Mohit Saraf - Appellant
Versus
Rajiv K. Luthra - Respondent
O.M.P. (I). (COMM). No. 339 of 2020, I.As. No. 9626 & 9772 of 2020
Decided On : 18-01-2021
JUDGMENT :
I.As. 9626/2020 & 9772/2020
1. These applications have been filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file additional documents on record.
The same are allowed and the additional documents are taken on record. Applications are disposed of.
O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 339/2020
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act of 1996’, for short) with the following prayers:
“Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the submissions made in regard thereto, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Stay the notice issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner by way 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 administration, 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 forthwith hand over 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 directly 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) Direct 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 name@luthra.com, servers, database, software subscriptions, whose access has been 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 1stand 9th Floors, Ashoka Estate, 9, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001;
(j) Restrain the Respondents from causing any disturbance or damage to the office cabin 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;
(l) 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 representation, communication, filing, applications etc. to any regulatory authorities including the Registrar of Firms, or to the media t
Regional Director, ESI Corpn. v. Ramanuja Match Industries
Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishtappa
Needle Industries India v. Needle Industries Newey (India Holding Ltd.)
Erach F.D. Mehta v. Minoo F.D. Mehta
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Comi Sorab Warden & Ors.
Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke
Suresh Kumar Sanghi & Ors. v. Amrit Kumar Sanghi & Sons
Ram Prasad Singh v. Shivanandan Misra
CIT v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills
Ambalal Sarabhai v. KS Infraspace
Nandan Pictures Ltd v. Art Pictures Ltd.
Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. v. Cox & Kings India Ltd.
Hejian Solidkey Petroleum Machinery Co. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation
Rajeev Mehra v. Sudhir Kumar Sachdev
J.L. Gugnani (HUF) v. O.P. Arora
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.
Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation
Champaran Cane Concern v. State of Bihar: AIR 1963 SC 1737
Ashok Kumar v. SBI Officers Association
Santiram Mullick v. Hiranmony Bagechi reported in (1991) 2 CALLT 399 HC
Sunku Munuswami Chettiar v. Sunku Narasimhalu Chettiar and Ors.
Muralidhar vs. CIT MANU/SC/0116/1966: 1966 62 ITR 323(SC)
Mushtaque & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore
Intercontinental Hotels Group-India Private Limited and Ors. v. Shiva Satya Hotels Private Limited
Online Hotel Reservations Pvt. Ltd. v. Classic Citi Investment Pvt. Ltd.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.