Law Faculty grad, Supreme Court lawyer Nakul Dewan invited to join 20 Essex Street

Nakul Dewan, a Supreme Court lawyer and a graduate of the Faculty of Law at Delhi University has been invited to join 20 Essex Street, a London barrister set that was invited by the government of Singapore to set up chambers in Singapore in 2010..Dewan, who has appeared in a number of high profile arbitration matters as well as the Vodafone tax dispute before the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi Court Fees matter, is also a member of the Singapore bar and divides his time between Singapore and Delhi..In this interview with Bar & Bench, Dewan shares his thoughts on the entry of foreign law firms, what this move means to him professionally and the role of a senior at the bar..Bar & Bench: When did 20 Essex Street invite you to be a part of their chambers and why did you accept it?.Nakul Dewan: I was invited by 20 Essex Street mid-March 2014. I had been interacting with a number of their Queen’s Counsel and junior members for close to a year in London, and we realized that for both chambers and me it would be a great sync. I am called to the Singapore Bar and 20 Essex Street was one of the two English Barrister chambers to have been invited by Singapore’s Ministry of Law to open chambers in Singapore in 2010..For me, joining 20 Essex Street allows me to practice as an independent counsel in Singapore as well as gives me a leg in London. .B&B: What will this mean in terms of work profile and work allocation? Will you be spending a greater amount of time in Singapore from now on?.ND: Most of my hearings in Singapore for 2014 have already been fixed, so my life in practical terms of when I will be in Singapore is unlikely to change. My practice in India is primarily in the Supreme Court and focused on constitutional and commercial work. My international practice is a mix of international arbitrations and commercial trials before Singapore Courts. I go where my hearings take me. .B&B: Your thoughts on the entry of foreign law firms in India? Do you think it will happen with a right leaning government?.ND: Foreign law firms should have been here 10 years ago, because by now you would have realized which firms were serious about India. Legal services always follow and complement financial services. If the government is keen to grow the economy, it is natural that should allow the legal sector to grow. Today we have a brain-drain from India, with bright young Indian lawyers working in the India practices of foreign law firms in London, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai. A majority of them would love to come back to India if those law firms are allowed to set up. .By all means, foreign law firms should be regulated and every lawyer who is a part of that law firm should be allowed to only give such advice and/or act on a matter under whose law he or she was qualified. So like you can’t have an Indian qualified lawyer giving advice on New York law, similarly, you can’t have a New York qualified lawyer giving advice on Indian law. .B&B: In 2007, you wrote an article titled “Arbitration in India: An Unenjoyable Litigating Jamboree”- would this describe your current views on Indian arbitration?.ND: There has been a sea-change. Look at the judgments in BALCO and Shree Lal Mahal. In BALCO, when I appeared before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court for the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (who were interveners), the Court was spot on with respect to the international jurisprudence on the subject. .In Shree Lal Mahal, where I was acting as a junior to Rohinton Nariman, we made the submission before a three judge bench presided over by J. Lodha that in an earlier decision in Phulchand Exports (which he had written) the Court had affirmed that the over-expansive meaning of public policy would also apply to the enforcement of international arbitration awards. However, J Lodha, who was sitting in thee three judge bench, disagreed with us and Phulchand is no longer good law. How many times do you see a judge setting aside one of his own earlier judgments?.B&B: After completing the law course, you worked with former Chief Justice of India, AM Ahmadi. Could you tell us a bit about that experience?.ND: It was great. I learnt a lot from him, not just professionally but also personally. I would always credit him for getting me to learn how to think about the law, and finding a solution to a problem. As lawyers, that is what we need to do every day: find a solution for someone who engages your services..B&B: As a young lawyer, did you initially find it difficult to enter the arbitration arena in India?.ND: It all began with small-steps. My first arbitration was a Rs. 20 lakh dispute which was heard by a Director of a small unlisted company operating out of Bhogal (near Jangpura) in Delhi. The hearings were held in a small room of the company, in a place that was as non-descript as it gets. But over time the nature of work started to get better. .I was also fortunate that with Justice Ahmadi, I got an exposure to international arbitration very early on. Early on in my career I used to utilize the Supreme Court’s vacation period to write articles on international arbitrations and these were picked up by foreign journals and published because there was an interest in knowing more about international arbitrations in India. Being called to the bar in Singapore also gave a further fillip to that practice, because international arbitration in Singapore has grown manifold in the last 5 years. .B&B: Your thoughts on retired judges being appointed arbitrators by courts? Do judges necessarily have the expertise in arbitration? Shouldn’t we be moving towards institutional arbitration models?.ND: These are actually two unrelated questions. The answer to the first is yes, there is nothing wrong in retired judges being arbitrators. In fact, judges can be very good arbitrators because they have been decision makers through a majority of their professional career, and they make decisions based on evidence, facts and law. So that experience is invaluable. People who accept arbitral appointments must be those who can take out the time to hold hearings and render decisions expeditiously..I agree that we should move towards institutional arbitration. Institutions administratively monitor their cases and nudge parties and arbitrators, if required, to go through the process as reasonably quickly as possible. That is the big benefit of having institutions, as opposed to ad-hoc arbitrations, which often get derailed because there is no one to monitor them. .B&B: You are known to be a lawyer who is extremely patient with his juniors. Who would you describe as your mentor or role model?.ND: I don’t know who said that to you (pauses) and I would be surprised if my juniors agreed. At the bar (as opposed to a law firm), a senior is really a mentor (and not a boss) and very often a mentor for life. So as a mentor you really are trying to impart the little that you know on to the next generation of lawyers. I’ve been fortunate to have closely worked with different seniors through different phases of my career. .I would club the question of mentors and role-model into one, because there are different things I have picked up from different seniors. I have worked with Justice Ahmadi and his son Huzefa, a Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court, Rohinton Nariman (especially during the period when he was the Solicitor General), Harish Salve (even though I was never his chamber junior) and in Singapore, K Shanmugam SC. All these people have, in some form or the other, given me great opportunities and I have learnt a lot from each of them.