header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 April 2012 / Audley Sheppard , Joachim Delaney
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Fly in & fly out

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll