Gokul Rajan, currently consultant at Citibank in Mumbai, and Nikhil Naredi, Singapore-based associate at Jones Day, are both set to be joining the new firm that will be started by Amarchand Mumbai managing partner Cyril Shroff, as partners to beef up the capital markets practice.
Rajan will be joining in Delhi, while Naredi will join in Mumbai, and both will work together on a Delhi capital markets push, according to sources close to the firm.
Both graduated from NLSIU Bangalore – Rajan in 2003 and Naredi in 2004 – and both hold US LLMs – Rajan from Northwestern University School of Law in 2007, and Naredi from Columbia Law School from 2012.
Rajan began his career at BMR & Associates, joined S&R Associates in 2007 and became a managing associate at Linklaters in Singapore between 2011 and 2014, before joining Citibank in Mumbai.
Naredi began his career at Amarchand, joining Jones Day in 2009 as an associate in Singapore.
Both did not respond to messages seeking comment. Cyril Shroff did not respond to a message seeking comment.
Team (Cyril) Amarchand Mangaldas (Delhi) | Team (Shardul) Amarchand Manganldas (Mumbai) |
Kochhar & Co partner Harry Chawla Gnarus Partners founder Rishi Anand Khaitan associate partner Harsh Kumar Raghuram Raju (ex-Dua Associates partner, ex-GC of Religare) Luthra & Luthra partner Piyush Mishra Khaitan & Co Delhi partner Gauri Rasgotra; and Economic Laws Practice (ELP) partner Kirat Singh Nagra. | Khaitan associate partner Abhishek Sinha Dudhat Pereira & Associates founder and former Udwadia Udeshi partner Radhika Pereira. Khaitan associate partner Iqbal Khan Khaitan & Co associate partner Deepto Roy |
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
True. [...] Dont forget there is also Yash Usher in the same space. Capital markets is not doing well so its a mystery what these guys will do.
Very impressive show by cam. Will give Luthra and Sam a good run for their money ? And also madhurima at azb ? What fun!
Though using a word like 'disloyal' is somewhat borderline acceptable and obviously a matter of subjective opinion, which I don't think any readers would interpret as statements of fact, no?
Calling someone disloyal is 1.) slightly silly, and 2.) in the case of someone who changes law firms frequently, it is obviously within the realm of 'fair comment' and opinion, even if it is obnoxious or somewhat unreasonable. Calling a lawyer disloyal, is not defamatory, however, unless we're talking about a profession that has in its JD slavish devotion, like 'butler' or 'secret service agent'.
But saying, for instance, that someone is a crap lawyer or incompetent, are things that are potentially defamatory when said about a professional.
Agree with you that the boundaries aren't always clear, but we try to not be censorious unless there's a legal reason to be.
We're trying to strike the best balance possible in a hard situation, between people like you complaining that we're too censorious, and others complaining that we allow anonymous attacks on individuals.
I'd strongly argue that we're not in the 19th century anymore where calling someone 'disloyal' would "directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, [lower] the moral or intellectual character of that person", particularly if said in the context of a lawyer's loyalty to an employer in an anonymous comment on a website (as opposed to, for instance, loyalty to their spouse or their country or whatever other variants of loyalty there are).
Furthermore, under criminal defamation laws the aggrieved would have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that there was intent or knowledge that the statements would cause harm to the reputation (in the mind of a reasonable person), on top of clearing the above hurdle.
Furthermore, under civil law truth and fair comment are a defence.
Like I said, unless we're living in a time of duels over insults to a 'gentleman's' bruised honour, there should be varying degrees in the type of statements made.
And the only practical solution, which you seem to propose, is to not publish (or allow to be published) anything that is remotely critical of anyone, ever, even in a journalistic capacity (or, bizarrely and alternatively, to publish everything).
However, I do not think the way you read them is how India's (admittedly strict) defamation laws work.
I understand that you might be upset when your comment is apparently arbitrarily not published when others are but we're operating in greys here and not in black and whites as you seem to paint them. There is some rhyme and reason to our moderation, in general, and you'd also do well to remember that the 'money hungry' and disloyal comment was promptly removed after it was reported to us.
In short, without retreading the ground already covered, what else do you suggest we do?
Apart from that, he has the ability to bond with the people he's working with and many of his ex-colleagues would follow him anywhere. So would the clients he's worked with. I can think of at least three majors in the telecom sector who would always want to give him work.
It's very easy to snipe from behind a pseudonym online, and it's equally easy to praise somebody to their face while harbouring any number of jealousies. What may be harder is supporting your views with either personal observations, or with actual evidence which is deal or litigation specific. Nobody is under any duty to take you seriously if you can't back up what you say.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first