covington & burling
Post on 01-Jun-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
1/15
IN
'iI{E
:;UPRE}v1E
CCURT
OF
INDIA
SPECIAL
LEAVts
PETITION
(under
Article
i3ii
of
the
Constitution
of
lndia)
Special
Leave
Petition
(Crvil)
No'17150-17154
of
2012
IN
THE
MA'ITER
OF:
The
Bar
Council
ot
lndia
21,
Rouse
Avenue
Institutional
Area
New
Delhi
-
I
l0
002
Pi:titioner
ResPondcnts
-Vs-
.f4),
,,1...'.;,::
A.K.
Balaji
7l
lO7
,
Mel
Batcira
Pet
l-larur,
Tamil
Nadu
-
$6
9A3
And
39
others
{'rr{-
COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT
FILED
ON
BEHALF
Oi'
RESPo$dvr
No'r:'
covrNcroN
&
BURI-Ii{G
LLP
l
I,
Ralph
C'
Voltmer'
Jr''
son
of
Ralph
C'
Voltmer'
Sr''
agcd
aboui
52
years,
with
office
at
Covington
&
Burling'
LLP''
l20l
Pennsylvania
Ave''
NW,Washington,DC,UnitedStatesofAmerica'dohercbysolemnly
athrm
and
sincerely
state
as
tbllows:
l.
I
am
one
of
the
partners
of
this
Respondent
and
therEtbre,
I
arn
acquaintedwiththefac$anddulyauthorizedtoalfrrmthiscountcr
atf]davit'IhavercadthespecialLeavePetitionfiiedbytlrePetitioncr
hereinandherebydenytireaverTncntscontainedtherein(exccpttoihd
extentexpresslyadrrritted)onthebasisofrnyknowleclge,ilrlbrnlationand
legal
advice'
V(cL*KIG"A
)
Qo rr"*.',iotuo*
, "-',",
iiloi-'C
Criinrcr
w
couJrell
PRELIMINARY
OBJ
ECTIOI{
S
:
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
2/15
iBr"
v
2. The
Petition
is liable
to be
dismissed
in liminc
for
reasons
set
out
ln
this
counter
affidavit
and
to
be
urged
at
the
time
of making
written
and
oral
submissions.
The
Petition
does
not
present
any
substantial
question
of law
or
fact.
This
Respondent
does
not have
a
law
office
in lndia
and
it
does
not
give Indian law
advice
to
its
clients as
alleged
by
the
Petitioner
in
the
Petition.
The
Petitioner
does
not have
locus
standi
to
file this
Special
Leave
Petition.
There
is
no contradiction
in
the
ruiings
of
the
Bombay
High
Court
and
the
Madras
High
Court
as
incorrectly
alleged
in
the
Petition'
Therefore,
there
is
no
germane
issue
for
considEration
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court.
REPLY
TO
THE
SYNOPSIS:
3.
The
statements
in
the
synopsis
are
incorrect
and
rnisleading'
ln
particular,
the
Petitioner
has
averred
that
the
issues
that
arose
in the
case
before
the
Madras
High
Court
were
the
same
as
the
issues
before
the
Bombay
High
Court
in
Lawyers
Collective
Vs.
Bar
Council
of
India'
2010
(l12)
Bombay
Law
Report
32
(the
Lawyers'
collective
case).
This
averment
is factually
incorrect
and
is,
therefore'
misleading
and denied'
4.
In
the
Lawyers',
collective
case,
the
Bombay
High
court
was
required
to
adjudicate
on
the
validity
of
licenses issued
by
the
Rcserve
Bank
of India
to a
few
tbreign
law
tirms
under
Section
29
of the
Foreign
Exchange
Regulation
Act,
1973.lt
was contended
that the
Advocates
Act'
l96l
(Advocates
Act)
only
deals
with the
practice
of Indian
law
in
court
and that
it does
not deal
with
or regulate
the
practice of Indian
law
outside
court.
On this
basis,
it
was
further
contendEd
that
foreign
lawyers
are
entitled
to
provide
transactional
and
advisory
services
in
relation
to
mattsrs
:
.]
ir'tt'f
tl'
pl
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
3/15
,,
.:,.i
t:
i'
,
-"-)
SovemedbyIndianlaw'ThiscontentionwasrgjectedbytheBombay}ligh
Courtwhichheldthatthepracticeoflaw,undertheAdvocatesAct,covers
bothlitigationandtransactional/advisorypractice'Theissueofwhether
adviceconcerningforeignlawisregulatedbytheAdvocatesActwasnot
raised
before
the
Bombay High Court'
5.lndistinctconuast,A.K.Balaji,thePetitionerbeforetheMadras
HighCourt,contendedthattheAdvocates,Actgovernsthepracticeofall
laws,
whether
Indian
or
foreign,
within
the
tenitory
of
lndia.
ln
response'
thisRespondentsubminedthatitdoesnothaveofficesinlndiaandthatits
lawyers
do
not
practice
Indian
law'
Further'
it
was
contendcd
that
the
AdvocatesActdoesnotdealwithorreguiatethepracticeofforeignlaw
andthat,inparticular,theAdvocatesActdoesnotprohibitforeignlawyers
tiomprovidingservicesinlndiainrelationtonon.Indianlaw.Becausethis
issuewasneitherraisedbyanyofthepartiesnoradjudicatedbythe
BombayHighCourtintheLawyers,Collectivecase,thisissuewasres
integra
and
was
required
to
be
decided
by
the
Madras
High
Coutl'
6.
In
the
impugned
judgment'
the
Madras
High
Court
accepted
the
submissionofA.K'Balajithatthepracticeoflawcoversbothlitigation,and
non.litigation,practice.Inreachingthisconclusion,theMadrasHighCourt
ret.erredto,andreliedupon'thedecisionoftheBombayHighCouninthe
LawYers,Collectivecase.Inaddition,theMadrasHighCourtacceptedthe
contentionofthisRespondentandtheotherforeignlawfirmsthatthe
AdvocatesActdoesnotdealwith,regulatEorprohibitrhepracticcof.
foreign
law.
For
these
reasons,
it
is
incorrect
to
state
that
the
judgments
ol
theMadrasHighCourtandtheBombayHigtrCourtarecontradictory'
.:
{,r/rrrrlfar,l
#"ffm,$s#&iryl
ffitgYa'at6
$ir
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
4/15
qY[l
T.Withoutprejuclice,thisRespondentisalsoadvisedbycounsclto
state
that
the Madras
High
court
is
not
bound
to
tbllow
the
judgment ol'the
Bombay
High
Court.
REPLYToTHENARRAI.IONoFDATESANDEVEN.|S:
8.Forthesamereasons,thenarrationofdatesandeventsisalso
incorrect
and
misleading.
In
adiiition,
in this
connection
this
Rcsportdcnt
is
advised
by
counsel
to
state
that
Section
47
ol
the
Atlvocatcs
Act
deals
rvith
the
practice
of
Indian larv
by
persons
who
are
not
citizcns
ot'
India'
Theretore,
the
Bar
Council
of
lndia
is
authorized
to
permit
non-citizcns
with
foreign
legal
qualitlcations
to
practice
Indian
law
if
reciprocity
requirements
are
lulfi
lled.
g.
As
regards
the
exercise
of
disciplinary
authority
over
lbreign
larvyers,
this
Respondent
submits
that
all
its
lawyers
are
subject
to
thc
disciplinary
control
of
specific
supervisory
bodies
in
the
relevant
horne
jurisdiction.
Moreover,
the
Bar
Council
of
lndia
is
not
entitled
to
exercisc
such
disciplinary
control
unless
the
law
so
provides'
At
this
juncture'
this
Respondent
is
advised
by
counsel
to
state
that
the
Advocates
Act
and
thc
Ilar
council
of
India
Rules
(the
BCI
Rules)
do
not
empower
the
exercisc
o1'
disciplinary
control
by
the
Bar
Council
of
India
ovcr
lbreign
larvycrs
practicing
tbreign
larv
in
lndia'
10.
The
narration
of
t-acts
in
relation
to
the
contents
of the
af'tidavit
lllcd
by
A.K.Balaji
and
the counter
atfidavits filed'by
each
of
the
Respondepts
is
incomplete.
ln
particular,
the
Petitioner
herein
has
not
adverted
to
tlte
4rU't'ai^n'/r
/U
m,a;wKl
lArsoN
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
5/15
ir:i: i
averrnents
in
the
counter
affidavit
of
this
Respondent
in
response
to
A.K.Balaji,saffidavit.ThisRespondentrequestsleavetotreatthecontents
of
its
counter
aflldavit
in
the
Madras
High
court
as
an
integral
part
of
this
counter
afflrdavit
so
as
to
avoid
repetition
of
the
contents
thereof'
A
copy
ot
thecounteraffrdavitfiIedbelbretheMadrasHighCourtisannexedhereto
as
"Annexure
R1".
ll.Inaddition,thisRespondentisadvisedtosubmitthatnoneofthe
provisions
of
the
Advocates
Act
or
the
BCI
Rules
ret-er
to'
or
deal
with'
the
practice
of
tbreign
law
or
international
law
within
the
territory
of
India'
on
aliteralinterpretation,theAtlvocatesActcannotbeinterpretedasaStatutg
that
deals
with
the
practice
of
foreign
law
or
international
law
in
lndia'
Furthermore,itissubmittedthatthisRespondentisnotliabletobe
restrainedfrompracticingtbreignlaworinternationailawwithinthe
territory
of
lndia.
Any
such
restriction
would
be
without
statutory
mandate'
12.
Moreover,
to
attempt
to
regulate
under
the
Advocates
Act
thc
provisionofadviceonmattersofforeignlawbyforeignlawyerswhilcin
India
would
be
unreasonable
for
a
number
of
reasons
including'
inter
aliu'
the
fbllowing:
a.
ln
the
event
that
there
are
cases
initiated
against
or
by
lndian
companies,Govemmentagencies,PublicsectorUndenakingsor
individuals
before
courts
in
the
United
states
of
America
(usA/
US)
or
US
regulatory
authorities,
it
would
become
necessary
to
engage
US
attorneys
and
seek
the
advice
of
such
attorneys.
At
such
instances,
it
may
bccome
necessaryforsuchattorneystot)yinandilyoutoflndiatomeetclicnts'
,,:
l
KrlrrKdl*n"D
/#"tr'HHS###S**^
Uy
eultsrm
ErPi6
F buary
28' At6
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
6/15
discuss
the
case,
peruse
documents
and
clarity
their
doubts
if
trny tbr
ablc
representation.
Such
visits
may
also
be
necessary
when
the
attorncy
concerned
needs
to
elicit
information
concerning
the
case
from
more
than
one
of
the employees
of
a
client
and
peruse
all
documents
pertaining
to
the
case
So
as
to identiff
relevant
documents.
In
the event
Such
attomeys
are
not
permitted
into
India
in
order
tcl
ably
represent
their
clients
on
matters
of
us
law,
whether
before
us
courts,
us
ariministrative
agencies
or
otherwise,
their
Indian
clients
andlor
their
employees
would
have
to
schedule
meetings
out of
India
and ship
or
carry
all
documents
pertaining
to
the
case,
whether
relevant
or
irrelevant.
This
would
substantially
increase
the
costs
of
all
those
availing
themselves
of
the
services
of
fbreign
lawyers
-- whether
the
Indian
Government,
public
sector
undertakings,
other
lndian
companies
or individuals.
b.
According
to
Census
data,
lndia
exported $36
billion
in
goods
to
the
(hnps ://www,census.Bov/forei
gn-
201I
S
in
trade/statistics/product/enduse/imports/c533O.html).
The
makers
of
those
products
need
to
understand
U.S.
law
on
labeling
and
regulation
of the
products,
as
well
as
obtain
advice
on
the
law
governing
contracts
with
U'S'
buyers
and
distributors.
Similarly,
Indian
makers
of
export
goods
need
to
understand
the laws
of
tho many countries other than the
United
States
into
which Indian
goods
are
sold.
Such
an
entity,
e.g.,
an
Indiiur
pharmaceutical
tirm,
might
wish to
have
lawyers
from
numerous
countries
travel
to
India
to
discuss
regulatory
and
labeling
issues
that
bear
on
the
products
they
export.
It
would
be
ineftlcient
to
forse
ttte
management
of
the
company
to
visit lawyers
in each
country
in
wh.ich
the
Indign
source
products
are
sold'
YrUKu.f-^hu,)
/ I
fuzwtKwArsoN
rd6rv
ruarc
uslntcr
oF @alJr{B,A
fry
eaauin
Beies f Uua,y8,
At6
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
7/15
-
-
4q4r"fD^-at'
///
fuLwKuJATsoN
UCERv
n
q.lc
rxsrrucr
oF
oougrr
..,.;.
c.Manyinternationalcommercialcontractscontainanarbitration
clause
and
a
governing
law
clause.
It
is
both
legally
permissible
and
plausiblethatinacontractbetweenanlndiancompanyandaforeign
company,thegoverninglawisforeignlawwhereastheseatofarbitrationis
lndia(anlndianclientmaynegotiatesuchaclauseinordertoreducecosts).
In
such
a
situation,
it
will
be
necessary
to
engage
the
services
of
lawyers
qualifiedinthegoverning aw'However,suchservicesarerequiredtobe
renderedinlndia'Inalllikelihood,theservicesoftbreignlawyers(non.
citizens)
who
are
not
enrolled
as
advocates
under
the
Advocates
Act
will
bc
required.
If
the
interpretation
canvassed
by
the
Petitioner
herein
is
to
be
accepted,
it
would
be
illegal
for
clients
to
engage
the
services of
tbreign
lawyers
for
such
arbitration
proceedings
held
in
lndia,
which
would
tbrce
the
clients
to
choose
a
location
outside
India
as
the
seat
of
arbitration'
As
a
result,
the
burden
and
costs
on
lndian
clients
of
participating
in
such
arbitrationproceedingswouldincreasesigniticantly.Moreover,sucha
position
would be
contrary
to
the
poiicy
of
the
Indian
Government
tu
actively
promoting
India
as
a
destination
for
international
commercial
arbitration.
Indeed,
it
would
be
contrary
to
the
legislative
mandate
of
the
Arbitration
and
conciliation
Act,
1996,
and
the
interpretation
thercof
by
this
Hon'ble
Court
and
the
High
Courts'
d.
Foreign
lawyers
I
law
firms
have
been
engaged
by
public
scctor
undertakings
to
provide
advice
in
relation
to
disinvestments
and
public
issue
of
shares.
By
way
of
illustration,
ref.erence
may
be
made
to
the
disinvestmentprocessinitiatedbytheDepartmentofDisinvestment,
Ministry
of
Finance,
Government
of
Inclia'
The
Department
of
Disinvestment
in
its
'Hand
Book
on
Disinvestment
*rough
Public
i'$ffi
tty
Coamjssim
Epircs tusruary
28,
201
I
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
8/15
.
Ol-terings',
mandated
the
appointment
of
international
legal
advisors
in
respect
of
the
scope
of
work
set
out
in
Annexure
ll
thereto.
Likewise,
the
prospectuses
issued
by
NTPC
Ltd.
antl
Coal
India
Ltd.,
in
connection
with
their
follow-on
public issue
and
initial
public issue
respectively,
contain
the
names
of
their
international
legal
counsel.
In
connection
with
such
engagements,
foreign
lawyers
have
been
invited
by
the
Governmcnt
or
public sector
undertakings,
as
the
case
may
be,
to
attend
meetings
in
lndia
to
provide
advice
on
tbreign
or
international
law.
No
relaxation
has
been
granted by
the
Petitioner
herein
in
this
regard
by
exercising
powers
under
Section
47(2) of
the
Advocates
Act.
e.
Several
leading
Indian
companies
such
as
Dr.
Reddy's
Laboratories
Ltd.,
HDFC
Bank
Ltd.,
lclcl
Bank
Ltd.,
Infosys
Technology
Ltd''
Tata
Motors
Ltd.
and
Wipro
Ltd.
have
issued
American
Depository
Receipts
(ADRS) or
other
securities
in
the
USA.
In
connection
therewith,
foreign
law
firms
have
been
appointed
to advise
Ildian
comPanies
on
such
otferings'
on
such
occasions,
it becomes
necessary
for
us
lawyers
to
fly
into
India
to
appropriately
advise
their
clients
on
US
laws
and
fly
back
to
the
US'
13.
Likewise,
this
Respondent
t'iled
a
rejoinder
in
response
to
the
counter
aftrdavit
of
the
Bar
Council
of
India
and
the
contents
thereof
rnay
be
treated
as
an
integral
part of
this
counter
affidavit
so as
to avoid
repetition.
A copy
of
the
Rejoinder
is annexed
hereto
as
"Atrnexure
tt2"'
REPLY
WITH REGARD
TO
THE
QUESTIONS
OF
LAW:
14.
On
advice
fiom
counsel,
this
Respondent
sets
out
below
factual
clarifications,
relating
to the
questions
of
law,
based
both on
the
pleadings
/rU/((/Ctu,)
/l*6wxKwArsoN
n*try
x:guc
olslntcroF
@tlrlgA
t rnir
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
9/15
.
before
the
Madras
High
court
and
the
observations
and
findings
in
the
impugnedjudgmentsoasassistthisHon'bleCourtinframingappropriate
questions
of
law
lor
consideration:
i)
ln
reply
to
paragraph
2
(A):
this was not an
issue
betbre
the
Madras
High
court
because
all
the
Respondent
tbreign
law
firms,
including
this
Respondent,categoricallyStatedthattheydonotPracticelnditrnlaw.ln
fact,theimpugnedjudgmentrecordsthat"theprivaterespondentsherein'
namelytheforeignlawtirms,haveacceptedthatthereisexpress
prohibition
for
a
foreign
lawyer
or
a foreign
law
firm
to
practice
lndian
law."
Therefore,
the
relevant
question
of
law
is:
whether
the
practice
of
foreignlaw,onfly.infly-outbasis,isprohibitedbytheAdvocatesActand
the
BCI
Rules?
ii)Inreplytoparagraph2(B):thiswasalsonotanissuebetbrethc
Madras
High
Court
because
none
of
the
Respondent
law firms,
including
thisRespondent,submittedthatthepracticeoflawdoesnotincludc
transactional
or
advisory
work.
rndeed,
the
impugned
judgment records
that
,.the
foreign
law
firms,
who
are
the
private
respondents
in
this
writ
petition'
have
accepted
the
legal
position
that
the
term
practice
would
include
both
litigation
as
well
as
non-litigation
work, which
is
better
known
as
charnbcr
practice."
iii)lnreplytoparagraph2(C):therelevantquestionoflawis:whether
tbreign
lawyers
are
required
to
enroll
under
the
Advocates
Act
as
a
prc-
requisite
for
the
fly-in
f)y-out
practice
of
foreign
law
in
lndia.
ffiU,$##[o*is,r
.'
. :":>\
cid
-
ia
I
t,
it-'
,;;E-'
a
?
eu
lu
1
5'
b1
5
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
10/15
'
iv)
In
reply
to
paragraph
2
(D):
there
is
no
contradiction
in
thc
impugnedjudgmentoftheMadrasHighCourtwhereinthejudgmcntofthe
BombayHighCourtwasreferredtoandrelieduPontoconcludethat
foreignlawyerscannotpracticelndianlawincourtoroutsidecourtwithout
complying
with
the requirements
of
the Advocates
Act
and
the
BCI
Rulcs'
on
the
other
hand,
in
relation
to
the
practice
of
tbreign
law,
the
Madras
HighCourtheldthatthereisnobareitherintheAdvocatesActortheBCl
Rules
which
prohibits
the
t1y-in
fly-out
practice
of
foreign
[aw'
Thcrcfore'
thisquestionoflawhasbeenpreparedonthebasisofamisunderstanding
of
the
impugned
judgment'
v)Inreplytoparagraph2(E):thestatementthateveryStrateBlc
investment
coming
to
India,
as an
investment
decision,
should
be
viewed
in
a
holistic
manner
is
contained
in
paragraph
58
of
the
impugned
judgmcnt
whichreferstotheobservationsofthisHon'bleCourtinVodalbne
lnternationalB'V.Vs.Unionoflndia'(2012\6SCC6l3'Aquestionoflaw
does
not
arise
fbr
consideration
on
the
basis
of
this
observation'
vi)lnreplytoparagraph2F:.thisquestionshouldbeconsideredinthe
context
of
the
fact
that
international
commercial
arbitrations
often
involve
tbreign
law.
REPLY
TO
THE
GROUNDS:
15.
on
advice
fiom
counsel,
this
Respondent
sets
out
below
its
response
to
the
grounds
of
aPPeal:
l0
ir;1.1
3:,;s-:s::r
ir2ra
Fex
;:t1'-1,'413
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
11/15
17'
'.:
lr
,r"
i)lnreplytoparagraph5(l)ofthePetition:asstatedearlier'thereisno
contradictionintheimpugnedjudgmentoftheMadrasHighCourtwherein
thejudgmentoftheBombayHighCourtwasreferTedtoandreliedupon
withregardtothepracticeoflndianlawtoconcludethatforeignlawycrs
cannotpracticelndianlawincourtoroutsidecourtwithoutcomplyingwith
therequirementsoftheAdvocatesActandtheBClRules.ontheot}er
hand,inrelationtothepracticeoffbreignlaw,theMarlrasHighCourthcld
thatthereisnobareitherintheAdvocatesActortheBClRuleswhich
prohibitsthefly.infly-outpracticeofforeignlaw.Therefore'thisgroundof
challenge
of
the
impugned
judgment
is
liable
to
be
rejected'
ii)
ln
reply
to
paragraph
5(II)
of
the
Petition:
the
Madras
High
Cou(
has
referred
to
and
relied
upon
the
judgment
of
the
Division
Bench
of
the
Hon'ble
Bombay
High
Cou(
in
the
Lawyers'
Collective
case'
The
impugnedjudgmentalsotakesintoconsiderationthepleadingsandoral
submissionsonthisissueandrecords,inparagraph53oftheimpugned
judgment,
that
"the
foreign
law
tirms'
who
are
the
private
respondents
in
thiswritpetition,haveacceptedthelegalposirionthatthetermpractice
wouldincludebothlitigationaswellasnon-litigationwork,whichisbetter
knownaschamberpractice.Therefore,renderingadvicetoaclientwould
also
be
encompassed
in
the term practice'"
ln
addition'
the
impugned
judgment
records,
in
paragraph
60'
that
"the
private
responden$
herein'
namely
the
tbreign
law
tirms'
have
accepted
that
there
is
express
prohibitionloratbreignlawyeroraforeignlawfirmtopracticelndian
law."Besides,theLawyers'Collectivejudgmentdoesnotdealwithor'
record
findings
on
the
issue
arising
in
the
present
Petition:
whether
forcign
lawyerscanrenderlegaladvice'inlndia'onforeignlawonaflyin-fly
ll
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
12/15
out
basis'
Further,
and
witho
ut'
p"luaiZ
tn"
CollectivewasnotbindingontheMadrasHigh
ground
of
aPPeal
is
untenable'
judgment
in
LawYers
Court.
Therefore,
this
iii)lnreplytoparagraPhs(ltl)ofthePetition:thestatutorydutyofthe
PetitionerflowsfromtheAdvocatesActandis,consequently,confincdlo
regulatingthepracticeoflndianlaw'Theimpugnedjudgmentaffrrmsthe
Petitioner's
powers
in
this
regard'
including
the
position
practice
Indian
law
without
enrolling
with
the
Petitioner'
ground
ofaPPeal
is
untenable'
iv)
ln
reply
to
paragraphs
5(lV)
and
(V)
of
the
Petition:
the
impugned
that
one
cannot
Therefore,
this
ci
r'
.
iar;r
judgmentcorectlyappreciatesthefactthattherequirementsinScction24
oftheAdvocatesActsupporttheinterpretationthatitisastatutethatdcals
withlndianlawanditrightlyacceptsthataninterpretationprohibitingthe
practiceofforeignlawbyaforeignlawfirminlndiaresultsinamanit.estly
absurdsituationwhereinonlylndiancitizenswithlndianlawdcgree,who
areenrolledasadvocatesundertheAdvocatesAct,couldpractigetbreign
law,
when
the
fact
remains
that
foreign
laws
are
not
taught
at
the
graduate
level
in
lndian
law
schools,
except
comparative
law
courses
at
the
Master's
level.
v)lnreplytoparagraph5(VI)ofthePetition:Asinthecaseofthe
practiceofforeignlawingeneral,intheparticularcontextofinternational
commercialarbitration,theHon,bleMadrasHighCourthaspermittedthe
participationofforeignlawyersonthebasisthatinternationalcommercial
arbitration
often
involves
foreign law'
r ,rl /-'-
%rUK,oJ*ulD
/Ahzvxkwersox
t :i#t
PuBilc
Dlsracr
oF
colxllg
lA
12
u,
Z:n:xsn'zicira,F*l-u1'-L-{ii
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
13/15
VTkffi-
vi)Inreplytoparagraphs(Vll)ofthePetition:theprovisionof
reciprocityundertheAdvocatesActpertainstothepracticeofthelndian
lawandnotwithrespecttothepracticeofforeignlawbyatbreignlawyer
onaflyin_t.lyoutbasis.TheHon,bleHighCou(afterconsideringand
appreciating
the
relevant
provisions
of
the
Advocates
Act'
especially
Sections
2
(a),
17
(l),24
(
I
),
and
47
(l)' rightly
held
that
"if
a
lawyer
from
aforeignlawfrrmvisitslndiatoadvisehisclientsonmattersrelatingtothe
lawwhichisapplicabletotheircountr},forwhichpurposehefliesinand
tlies
out
of
lndia,
there
could
not
be
a
bar
for
such
services
rendered
by
such
foreign
law
frrm/
foreign
lawyer"'
16.
In
view
of
the
foregoing,
the
order
sought
to
be
impugned,
including
theoperativeportion,is,inanyovent'justandfair'ltiswellsettledthat
the
Hon,ble
supreme
court
will
not
interfere
with
a
judgment
of
a
High
court
if
it
is
just
and
fair.
Therefore,
the
impugned
judgment
of
the
Llon'ble
Madras
High
Court
calls
for
no
intert-erence'
REPLY
TO
THE
GROUNDS
FOR
INTENM
RELIEF:
lT.Inreplytoparagraphs6(I)and(II)ofthePetition,thisRcspondent
reiterates
that
it
does
not
practice
Indian law
and does
not
have
otlices
in
IndiaasrecordedbytheHighCourtintheimpugnedjudgment.Theretbre,
the
Petitioner
has
not
made
out
a
prima
tacie
case
for
interim
orders'
Thcre
has
been
no
statutory
or
judicial
prohibition
of
the
practice
of
foreign
iaw'
in
India,
till
date,
including
during
the
pendency
of
the
Petition
beibre
the
Madras
High
Court
13
Yu,fttfrfi
UilzvxKwArsoN
x3a;y
RJzuc
DjSTRiCT
o;
99,r-lrEt;.
r;'.1',.r....-.^
=.-....
=-r..-^,.t
,t.
?
r/il- t
*.;:
4,
_r tJ
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
14/15
-.:
"
18.
An
interim
stay
of
the
inrpugned
judgment
is
likclY
to
bc
misinterpretedbythePetitioneraSanorderrestrainingthepracticeol
tbreignlawinlndia'AnysuchprohibitionrestrainingthisRespondenttiom
renderinglegaladviceonlbreignlawtoitsclientswouldcauseineparablc
hardshiptothisRespondentanclitsclients,bothlndiananritbreignAs
alreadystated,itwouldincreasetransactioncostssubstantiallytbrlndian
clientswhowillbeconstrainedtotraveloutsidelndiatoobtainadviceon
non-lndianlawand,inanyevent,islikelytoimpairmatcriallythe
provisionofadviceto,andrcPresentationof,lndiabasetJclientsonmatters
of
U.S. Iaw'
19.
This
Respondent
sutes'
on
inlbrmation
and
beliel
that
thc
Governmentoflndia,variousStateGovernmentsandotherStateauthoritics
alsorelyupontheServicesoftoreignlawtjrmsancllawyerslbrlegaladvice
inrelationtolawsotherthanlnclianlaw.ThisincludesatJviceinthearcaof
projectfinance,foreigninvestments,accessinginternationalmarkcts,in
intemationaldisputeresolution,internationaltradeetc.Theirrtcrimordcrs,
iigranted,wouldprejutiiciallyattecttheseactivitiesandthcrcby
compromiselndia,sStrategicinterestsandbeagainstpublicinterestin
gencral'
20.
Hence,
tbr
all
of
the
above
reasons'
the
balance
of
conveniencc
is
in
tavour
ot.this
Respondent,
and
it
is
prayed
that
this
llon'ble
courr
may
bc
pleased
to
reject
the
interim
relief
sought
by
the
Petitioncr'
sf*
i1
K()fe'/^)
-
8/9/2019 Covington & Burling
15/15
21.
I
saY
that
no
before
the
Courts
Afhdavit.
)
new
facts
or
grounds
which
have
not
been
pleaded
below
have
besn
pleaded
in
the
present
CountEr
PRAYER
ItisthereforeprayedthatthisHon,bleCourtmaybepleasedtodismissthe
specialleavepetitionfiledbythePetitionerhereinandtopasssuchfurther
orders
as
deemed
fit
in
the
interest
ofjustice'
VENFICATION:
I,
the
deponent
above
named
do
hereby
veriff
that
the
contents
of
the
above
affidavit
are
true
to
my
knowledge;
the
submissions
made
arE
based
on
advicereceivedandbelievedtobecorrect;nopartofitisfaisearrdnothing
material
has
been
concealed
therefrom'
VerifiedbymeatWashington,DC,UnitedStatesofAmerioa'onthis2lst
day
of
February,20l3'
F,rtfrl)
top related