Chennai Writ

20 months on, most foreign law firms still not served in BCI appeal in AK Balaji writ; Dua, HSB instructed

Top speed: GlacialTop speed: GlacialTwenty months after the Supreme Court (SC) had given 10 weeks to complete serving notices on foreign law firms, the Bar Council of India (BCI) appeal against foreign law firms practicing in India, remains stuck at the service stage.

SILF view clashes with BCI SC appeal over foreign lawyers but says CA firms practise illegally

Bhasin_Company-Lalit-BhasinBhasin_Company-Lalit-Bhasin Contrary to the approach taken by the Bar Council of India (BCI), foreign lawyers should be allowed to fly into India temporarily to advise clients and assist in arbitrations, decided the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) in its general board meeting on Saturday, while noting that chartered accountants have been flouting the rules.

MSM reports of ‘blow’ to foreign law firms greatly exaggerated: SC affirms fly-in-fly-out, cites repealed FERA, nothing changed

Reports of foreign law firms' death greatly exaggeratedReports of foreign law firms' death greatly exaggeratedContrary to media reports, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Madras high court judgment on foreign law firms, expressly permitting the “fly-in-fly-out” of foreign lawyers, while reiterating the law laid down in the Bombay high court’s Lawyers Collective judgment preventing foreign lawyers from opening up offices in India.

BCI opens aggressively v foreign law firms in apex court Balaji appeal; Service in 10 weeks [Update 1]

Round 2Round 2 Breaking: The Supreme Court has given 10 weeks to serve 31 foreign law firms and the respondents in the apex court appeal against the AK Balaji Madras writ petition, with the Bar Council of India (BCI) arguing that the law should prohibit foreign lawyers from even temporarily travelling to India to advise clients.

BCI takes Madras writ v 31 foreign firms to Supreme Court

Foreign firmsForeign firms The Bar Council of India (BCI) today filed its long-awaited appeal against the Madras High Court judgment that allowed foreign lawyers limited foreign law practice in India.

Chennai writ losers: LPOs, CAs, secondments & logic. Winners: Invisible in-house & pragmatism

1960s Advocates Act: Kaputt?1960s Advocates Act: Kaputt? The ruling in the Chennai writ petition was hailed as pragmatic for solving the nearly two-year-old deadlock foreign firms were in. But frankly it is likely to continue exposing the deficiencies of the 1961 Advocates Act in dealing with modern-day India. And it could possibly  plunge a number of industries into a world of pain via the Bar Council of India (BCI).

BCI may appeal Chennai writ ruling as foreign firms, SILF like judgment

Mint & Legally IndiaMint & Legally India LI-Mint exclusive: The Bar Council of India (BCI), regulator of the legal profession, has indicated it might appeal against Tuesday’s Madras high court ruling allowing foreign lawyers to visit the country to advise clients on foreign law.

Chennai writ ruling: Foreign lawyers can advise foreign law but not domestic; LPOs must not give legal advice [download judgment]

FIFO (fly-in-fly-out) allowedFIFO (fly-in-fly-out) allowed The Chennai High Court has cleared foreign lawyers from flying in and out of India to advise on foreign law, as well as the operations of legal process outsourcing (LPO) outfits, although it added that foreign lawyers would not be allowed to practice domestic law unless they registered with the Bar Council of India (BCI).

Madras HC may give verdict in writ v foreign firms in 4 weeks, as arguments close

Foreign firm crossing: Stop and GoForeign firm crossing: Stop and Go The Madras High Court reserved its judgement yesterday and has begun deliberating on the fate of 31 international law firms and legal process outsourcing (LPO) outfit Integreon, and whether they face a ban of flying into India, after counsel for all sides concluded arguments.

Mint Blog: 5 biggest law firm stories of 2011 & latest on Chennai writ v foreign firms

imageimage Legally India’s last Mint column in 2011 gives its verdict on some of the past year’s biggest stories related to corporate law firms, with an unashamed slant bias towards UK-Indo relations. Click here to read more.

Exclusive: BCI Chennai writ affidavit swears it has power to but won’t relax foreign firm restrictions; Next hearing pushed

dead-end-sign_by_Andrew-Masondead-end-sign_by_Andrew-Mason The Bar Council of India’s (BCI) counter-affidavit filed in the AK Balaji Chennai case against 31 foreign law firms said that the BCI has decided not to relax the restrictions prohibiting foreign lawyers from practising and that the issue raised by the writ was “no longer res integra” because it had been settled in the 2009 Lawyers Collective case.

Legally India understands that the BCI’s thinking is that internal disparities at the Indian bar need to be eradicated through reform before making any decision on foreign firms.

Balaji writ v 31 foreign firms adjourned today, BCI files reply, final hearing on 22 September

The Madras High Court today adjourned the A K Balaji writ against 31 foreign law firms to 22 September for final hearing and disposal of the case as the Bar Council of India (BCI) filed its reply in favour of the petitioners.

Balaji’s Chennai writ petitioners sue London Court of Arbit for foreigner back-door entry

imageimage One year after it first sued 41 foreign laws firms, the Association of Indian Lawyers (AIL) has filed a case against the Delhi-based London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), wanting to excise the words “London Court” and alleging that the arbitration organisation is introducing foreign law and lawyers under the garb of arbitration.

Gov’t foreign firm amendment consultation adjourns Chennai writ

The year-old Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms in India has been adjourned to 2 August with the filing of an affidavit by the government today.

Chennai writ v foreign firms pushed to April, waits for BCI word

The writ petition against 31 foreign law firms in Chennai has been adjourned to 19 April following the Bar Council of India (BCI) having failed to hold a meeting to discuss the legal position of foreign lawyers.

Chennai writ v foreign firms adjourned; Manu Singhvi says writ politically premature; BCI wants another meeting

road-closed-signroad-closed-sign Senior advocate and former additional solicitor general Abhishek Manu Singhvi yesterday argued for an early disposal of the Chennai writ petition against foreign law firms while the matter was once again adjourned after the Bar Council of India (BCI) counsel promised comprehensive guidelines regulating the activities of foreign law firms would be discussed at a meeting before the month-end.

Chennai writ v foreign law firms pushed to January 2011 for consultations

The Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms was taken up today after having last been heard on 5 October but has again been adjourned to 25 January 2011 following the Central Government’s plea to seek broader consultation with foreign firms and an impending all India bar councils’ meeting.

x

Sign-up for the NUJS Business Law Diploma

Mooting Premier League 5

Latest comments

  SEARCH