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
CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll