Bar & Bench News Network
The Madras High Court has announced its judgment on the writ petition filed against the entry of foreign law firms. The final arguments were concluded on February 1, 2012 and the judgment reserved.
The Chief Justice M. Yusuf Eqbal has disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. Some of which are listed below.
The High Court has held that foreign law firms and foreign lawyers cannot practice the profession of law in India either in litigation or non-litigation without first enrolling with the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act. However, foreign lawyers can “fly in and fly out” on a temporary basis to advise their clients on international law.
With regard to arbitration, the Court stated that foreign lawyers can come to India to attend and hold international commercial arbitrations.
Lastly, with regard to BPOs, the Court stated that running a BPO is not practicing the profession of law. BPOs are restricted to doing certain kind of work and if they are found to be doing something against the Advocates Act, the Bar Council of India will take action against them.
It appears that this judgment has put to rest several issues pertaining to the exact status of foreign lawyers and law firms in the country.
A copy of the judgment is available on Judis and the same is available for download below.
Judgment in Foreign Law Firms Case
|
 |
- 1. "Congrats on being the first to break this story. ". Anon, (Unknown City?)
- 2. "Congrats guys on breaking the story first and also putting up a copy of the judgment first!". B & B Fan, Mumbai
- 3. "Well done B&B for being the first. I quote the operative part from the text above for ease of reference:"63. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, both on facts and on law, we come to the following conclusion :-(i) Foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practice the profession of law in India either on the litigation or non-litigation side, unless they fulfil the requirement of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.(ii) However, there is no bar either in the Act or the Rules for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a fly in and fly out basis, for the purpose of giving legal advise to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues.(iii) Moreover, having regard to the aim and object of the International Commercial Arbitration introduced in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign lawyers cannot be debarred to come to India and conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration. ...."". Indian Lawyer, London
- 4. "Interesting judgment - I have a question for all - it is clear to me now that the court has stated that practice of law means practice of India law (litigious and non-litigious) and not foreign law....so if international firms can practice foreign law in India from where does the court get the logic that it has to be only on a "fly-in and fly-out basis"???? Either you can practice foreign law or cannot...also lots of ambiguity about what is "fly-in and fly-out basis - 1 day; 1 week; 1 month; 1 year???? Thoughts?". Dharini, Delhi
- 5. "Para 1 (63) restricts foreign lawyers and law firms 'the practice of profession of law in India'. para 2 permits temporary presence to advise on foreign law, diverse international legal issues and theri own systems of law. reading both it means that as long as foreign lwyers and law firms do not 'practice profession of law in India' and are temporarily in India, they can practice foreign laws. You are correct that there should be no restriction on practice of foreign law in India through a permanent presence. However it has not been permitted for reasons best known to the court.". Lawyer, (Unknown City)
- 6. "arbitration should have also been restricted for lawyer appearance". Virajit, Nasik
Related Stories
- Foreign Law Firms Case: Arguments concluded; Judgment reserved
- Foreign Law Firms case heats up: Women Lawyers Association and TN Advocates Association join; more foreign firms to be added to the list
- Foreign lawyers replace Indian lawyers in Mangalore air crash victims’ compensation case
- 2010-2011 Capital Markets Practice - Foreign Law Firm Rankings (IPO and QIP): Conversation with Arun Balasubramanian of Linklaters and Pooja Sinha of OMM
- Foreign Law Firm Case adjourned to September 22 for final hearing and disposal; BCI files its Counter Affidavit
- Khaitan and Rajani advise on first foreign investor exit post SC judgment cancelling 122 licences in 2G scam; Batelco sells stake in S tel for $175 million
- Foreign Law Firm Case: BCI approaches Supreme Court against AK Balaji decision by Madras HC
Other News
- Re-Upped Round up May 23
- Alternative Law Forum to hold 2 day course on ‘Free Speech law in India’
- BCI to start Phase-Wise Agitation to oppose Higher Education Bill; July 11 and 12 to be Protest Days; Dharna at Jantar mantar in August
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)
Webmasters: AIKYA