Bar & Bench News Network
A Bench of Chief Justice M. Yusuf Eqbal and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam heard the foreign law firms’ case today at the Madras High Court and has adjourned the case to September 22 for final hearing and disposal of the matter.
Additional Solicitor General, M. Ravindran appearing for the Central Government requested the Bench to grant some more time to file their response as the Law minister has changed. The Government counsel also requested that they need time to consult with the Bar Council of India to finalise their response.
In the meanwhile, the Bar Council of India today filed their Counter Affidavit.
Speaking to Bar & Bench, Senthil Ramamoorthy Partner at Dua Associates representing some of the foreign law firms said, “BCI today filed its response and has taken a stand that the Advocates Act deals with both litigation and non litigation matters and this position has already been upheld by the Bombay High Court in the Lawyers Collective case”.
Bar & Bench spoke to Petitioner A.K. Balaji, “The matter has been adjourned one last time on the request of the Standing Counsel of Union of India to file their reply. The matter is now listed on September 22 for final hearing and disposal. BCI has filed its counter affidavit which is in our favour”.
Speaking to Karthikeyan, the counsel for the petitioner Association, “The Bar Council of India has today filed its response and I think they are with us. BCI has decided not to allow foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to practice in India and they are firm on their view”, he said.
The matter is now Listed for final hearing on September 22, 2011.
The foreign law firm’s case was filed by Petitioner A.K. Balaji and was last heard on January 24, 2011. The 31 foreign law firm’s case was adjourned twice last year after being heard on August 19, 2010. It was listed for hearing on October 5, 2010 and November 24, 2010. This year it has been listed four times already on January 24, March 8, April 19 and August 2.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- Foreign law firm’s case adjourned to April 19: Meeting of Bar Councils around April 9
- Foreign Law Firm Case: Judgment announced; Foreign lawyers cannot practice unless enrolled BCI; “Fly in fly out” permissible on foreign law and for arbitration (Download Judgment)
- Foreign Law Firm Case: BCI approaches Supreme Court against AK Balaji decision by Madras HC
- Heavy duty counsel in the Deemed Universities Case; Law on Foreign Universities soon
- Foreign Law Firms case heats up: Women Lawyers Association and TN Advocates Association join; more foreign firms to be added to the list
- Madras High Court: Foreign Law Firms case next on October 5
- Round 2: Prashant Bhushan files supplementary affidavit, detailing ‘evidence’ against alleged instances of judicial corruption
Other News
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
- Siddharth Wahi joins JSA as Of Counsel; Former Baker Mckenzie SA to focus on Energy Sector
- Re-Upped Round up May 16
- Bombay HC taking proactive steps to fight pendency; Special committee to examine pending civil suits for speedy disposal
- CLAT Booze Bills: NUJS defies providing information under RTI Act
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 (2)










