header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Fly in & fly out

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
04 April 2012 / Audley Sheppard , Joachim Delaney
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Audley Sheppard & Joachim Delaney welcome Indian moves to be recognised as an international arbitration hub
The Madras High Court has ruled that there is no bar on foreign lawyers visiting India on a fly-in-fly-out basis to provide legal advice to their clients in India on foreign law. In addition, foreign lawyers representing parties in international commercial arbitrations are permitted to participate in such proceedings in India. 

The ruling was given in a public interest case, AK Balaji v The Government of India, Ashurst LLP et al (21 February 2012). The case was brought by a lawyer on behalf of the Association of Indian Lawyers (a Tamil Nadu based pressure group) in Tamil Nadu against 31 foreign law firms and one legal process outsourcing company (LPO). 
 
The claimant argued that the foreign law firms and LPO were practising law in India in contravention of Indian laws, particularly the Advocates Act 1961. Some foreign law firms had opened offices in India, while other firms, it was argued, conducted their legal
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Big tech for small firms
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
NLJ this week: Presumption of capacity reaffirmed
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
NLJ this week: Justice delayed, justice denied
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
NLJ this week: The road ahead for employment rights
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: SLAPPed shut?
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll