33b

OF INDIA
IN THE SUPREME COIJRT

ORDERXVIRULE 4(iXA)

CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL

LEA\E PETITION

of India)
(under Article 136 of the Constitution

I:r-

THE MATTER OF:

(CIVILT NO' 17150-54 of 2012

spECIAL LEA\rE PETITION

(Arisingoutoftheimpugnedjudernen!*9.f]ii,orderdated2l,o2,IolzpassedbytheHon.bleHigh
WP No' 561412012)
tc.u.t Jt lraicature at Mud'u' in
BET\ATEEN

The Bar Council of India'

2i,

Rouse Avrll-r:le,

lnstitutional Area, New Delhi

110 002'

No' 7
... ApPellant/ ResPondent

VS

A.K. Balaji
7/107, Mel Batcha Pet'

Petitroner
... ResPondent No'1/

Harur, Tamil Nadu 636 903

And 40 others.

I,VALERIEELENMARYDAVIES,daughterofCledwynWilsonDavies,havinganofficeat3
MoreLondonRiverside,LondonSEl2AQ,do.herebysolemnlyaffirmandsincerelyStateaS
follows:

l,IamaSolicitoroftheseniorCourtsofEnglandandWales'IwasadmittedasaSolicitorin
EnglandandWalesinJanuarylg?gandbecameaPartnerinNortonRoseinlg36.Iamthe
GlobalGeneralCounselofNortonRoseLLPandamemberandpartner'Iamauthorisedtomake

thisAffidavitandhavetheconductoftheseproceedingsonbehalfofNortonRoseLLP

i
1

Vk"*iwM
(.

!/)

'{fi
P

u6,1c Lo nd

on,

En s

(Luis N. HYde'Vaami:"-.,

anc

2e (t7'l
r .-r'r\ The Answering

::Tl[
of

thi'

;:]"ffi ;f: fi ::

t$S;:5;X

iTJ::li :;;*"il::I]

filed before
counter affidavit
my
to
refer

pu"tl

Respondent

the

affidavit'

r r.eave

to
is the 29th Respondent

the impugped
petition frled against
Court of

l'':*"*

'":;tilt;X;,

on the
z.Attheourset,Istarethat'theabovespecialLeavePetitionfrled"::"':;"'uua'u'("theHigh
O'*-"^1"' le High
and order

rai

se

U**

"'0"i"

d b v trre'rpp

Jrra:nt

t"'""'*'"'""

warrant

'"""U

nn'" o"

* *t'

aPPeal alat
Court in an
Hon'ble
O' tO"

allegation
each and everv

,3 ::,

"'1'"'*

l'u*t'l :1'

mention;l;":"$,'iil

ffi :lffi []Iffi

:':

relate to
so far as theY
e Petition

ffi;;"ein'

*,:il*:',::H:l'x'1ffi;;;""0'n'"uu*:
Reguiati":i::::'l**i""

I submit that the

*":i:x;:::

counter
1 swore mv

Since
*"'""'itors
regulated o'
together with
to*llonon
"'2AQ'
Rose Australia'
sEl
Rose LLp "ru
Riverside, ,"ru",
".n* law firm ogilvy Renault' now
paragraPh
'' frn.u forces with
affidavit r*.."u''*

""r"u*n

;::T':'ffi

ffiT['J;:::;::;;JH;'ihes'u'ih^T::'$fi
:""1'r": :*j**'',.::;;l::::lt]fi:' :.*;..j

i*'
't

the Answering
submit that

an orrice

;Ifl

,,

;;;;-n,

n":Y

u riur.on

"*':Tilj[.::: ffi:;

ru*

o,

]:il;

;T:::'"I

rooms or
usins hotel

*:":;ff":ffi:::';";;'":"'"::r::;;:i"fi:'ffi ::-T::il*:::
* ;;uing Resp'nden'l
"'

i:::il::i:#ru;;;l::ffi:'
4

sub

o,

Answer
mit that the

n"n*r**,

in s

* - :,i;;;:

shareholding

tn
::'- t::::: :H:ffi:#1:1"'l;ffi:jJ;
of iaw in I'dia
practice
the
does ,r".,

-lt *.*.ruenr
The Answelnl
firm'
raw
Indian
*'*o"
of lndian re**t"' 'nt

;;;

*t'n"'Ut"t

works with
instructs and

X,::ff'T':I
':::::;::'::l,TJ#:T:'f
number"ir**lawrirms-q:ff

contravention

Parties
does not represent

in

the

London, England

Xen;,b4

d*Vaamonde)

%ff'9-'
Respondent acts on matters for clients whose business spans across borders and jurisdictions and

which depends on lawyers who understand the nature of their business. With regard to business in
lndia, work done by the Answering Respondent is either in connection with investrnent outside
India by krdian based companies or business organizations, or in connection with investment into

India by companies and other business organizations based outside India or Indian

based

companies on matters of law other than hdian iaw. This includes representing clients who wish
to buy interests in business organizations and/or companies or setting up joint ventures or lendiug
money to lndian companies where the governing law of the transaction is English law or the law

of one of the other jurisdictions in which we practice law (by way of example France, Germany,
Italy, The Netherlands and Hong Kong). ln short, the Answering Respondent acts on international
law or
transactions where it gives advice, from an intemational perspective, to clients on English
one of the other laws mentioned above, Staff from the-Answering Respondent's various offices
may visit lndia to promote the tjrm and to visit clients and business contacts. This may include
giving talks and attending conferences held in India. I submit that these instances can in no way
be construed as legal practice in

India, In all matters of the kind referred to above which involve

Indian law, we work alongside lndian law firms who provide Indian law advice. Therefore the
Answering Respondent is fully entitled to engage in the activities that are iiescribed above. I
submit that none of the Answering Respondent's activities amount to the practice of iaw in India
and therefore cannot be subject to the regulatory control ofthe Indian authorities'

5.

The submissions of the Appellant before the High Court at Madras are recorded in para 26 of the
impugned judgment. I further submit that none of the questions of law raised before this Hon'ble

Court were canvassed by the Appellant'before the High Court at Madras' I submit that the
contentions of the Appellant before the High Court at Madras as found liorn its counter-affidavit
in WP 5614 of 2010 can be summarized
t.

as:

The issue in the Writ Petition has been settled by the judgment and order of the lligh
Court of Judicarure at Bombay ("the High Couri at Bombay") in WP No. 1526 of 1995 in

the matter of Lawyers Collective vs Bar Council of India where

it

was held tirat the

Advocates Act, 1961 not only governed practice in litigious matters but also practice in

non-litigious matters within India.

a._.

11.

.:. I

.'.,:

Only persons who are citizens of India and thus eligible to enroll under Section 24 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 are allowed to practice. The Bar Council of India has the power to
provide for a relaxation ofsuch conditions.

N/.,wW

Public London, Englanr

iii.Thepracticeofforeigrlawwithintheten.itoryoflndiawillalsobesubjecttoregulation
bytheBarCounciloflndia.Suchpracticecouldevenbebypractitionersregisteredor
jurisdictions'
recognized within their domestic

6. None of

impugned judgment'
called into question under the
been
have
points
aforesaid
the

ThereforethbAppellantcannotbeaggrievedbyanyofthefindingsorobservationsmadebythe
of law does not
does not state that the practice

judgment
High court at Madras. The impugred
at
paragraph 63(i) the High court
side' on the other hand' in
include practice on the non-litigious

Madrasaffirmsthatforeignlawfirmsorforeignlawyerscannotpracticetheprofessionoflaw
of the
side unless they fulfill the requirement
non-litigious
the
or
side
litigious
either on the
AdvocatesAct,lg6lortheBarCounciloflndiaRules.Further,theimpugnedjudgmentdoesnot
0f lndia
relaxation from the Bar council
otherwise have not obtained
state that non-citizens, who

states in para 44
High court ai Madras specifically
The
India.
within
law
are aliowed to practice
collective
the view taken 'n the Lawyers
judgment that it does not differ fronr

of the impugned
case.

T.HowevertheHighCourtatMadrasrightlypointsoutthattheprimaryquestionthatarosebefore
theHighCourtatBombaywaswhetherforeignlawlrrmscouldopenliaisonofficesinlndiaand
submit tllat at
and non-litigious matters' I
litigious
in
person
another
to
render legal assistance
paragraph45theHighCourtatMadrasinitsimpugnedjudgmentriglrtlypointsoutthatthe
lawyers, without establishing
foreign law firms or foreign
whether
is
case
this
in
question

any

iegal advice to their clients

visit India for the purfose of offering
liaison office in lodia and who

inlndiaonforeignlaw,areprohibitedunderthe,provislonsoftheAdvocatesAct,ig6l'TheHigh
CourtatMadrasfu*herrightlypointsoutthatthisquestionwasneitherraisednoransweredinthe
LawYers Collectiv e case'

g.ThethirdpointraisedbytheAppellantthateventhe'practice'offoreigniawwithinlndiarvouid
Appellant before the l{igh court
of India was not argued by the
be governed by the Bar council
atMadras'lnanyevent,theterm.practice,envisagessomelevelofpermanencyofestablishment

oroperationsinlndia.onlythePetitionerbeforetheHighCourtatMadras(whoistheFirst
to India by a foreign iaw
visit
contended that even a temporary
Respondent in the present appeal)

firmoraforeignlawyerforandonbehalfofhisclienttoadviseaclientonmattersofforeignlaw
isalsonotpermittedundertheAdvocatesAct,lg6l'SuchcontentionwasrejectedandtheHigh
foreign

'lil

lndia for
firms or foreigrr lawyers from visiting
their own
in India regarding foreign law or
legal advice to their clients
giving
of
purpose
the
for

i:'i.j

,':,.i

|
.

1aw

Rules preventing
is no bar either in the Act or the
court at Madras decided that there
in and fly out' basis'
a temporary period on a 'fly

r::l
.:,,,:,

'.:
.:::|,

,.:',

t,:,1-

11,:i-1:

.::'.:t

1i fai.

:li,-i,

,,'r::-',i
',:'l:,..:
::.::1.::),

a:i:;,t

:,|i:.;
1'.:tl;!l

,/:i.i,!'
,ii;?,;',,.

London, Engtand

.::t;;.:)

'.:r:l).
:.;.)1,

Systemoflawand/orondiverseintemationailegalissues.TheFirstRespondenthasnotfiledan
appeal.TheAppellantwhowastheTtl,RespondentbeforetheHighCourtatMadrasneverraised
the High Court'
such contention before
9.

TheHighCourtatMadrastookonrecordtlresubmissionsmadebytheRespondentlawfirmsin

para47.;.Isubmitthatsuchvisitsonatemporaryortransientbasisdonotamounttopracticeof
of establishment but also
connotes perrnanency
only
not
term 'practice'
law within India. The
absent as far as the
day out basis which is
ln
auy
and
a systematic
follows'
connotes practice on
at Madras found as
At para 51, the High court
concerned,
Answering Respondent.is

,,suchactivitiescannotatallbeconsideredaspractisinglawinlndia,Ithasnotbeen
system of law or on
advice on their own
rawyers are free to
Engrand,
foreign
in
controverted that

EnglishLaworanyotherSystemoflawtuithoutanynationalityrequirementorneedtobe
qualifiedinEngland.,,Fufther,theHighCourtatMadiasalsoinparaS|reasonedthatin
to state that
internatioiralcommercialarbitrationbetweenlndianandforeignpartiesarisingoutof
it wourd be inappropriate
to foreign law,
that may be subject
international contracts

suchforeignpartiescannotberepresentedoradvisedbytheirownlawyersmerelybecausethe
venueofsucharbitrationisinlndia.Thereasonsarecogentlyexplainedinparagraphs52to5,Tot

theimpugnedjudgment.IsubmitthattheHighCourtatMadrasriglrtlyfoundinpara5Tas
follows,,,There/bre,toadyocateapropositia'nthatforeignlawyersorforeignlawfirmscannot

comeintolndiatoadvicetheirclienl,sonforeignlawwouldbeafarferchedanddangerous
proposifionandinouropinion,wouldbebtakeastepbacbward,whenlndiaisbecominga
preferredseatJbrarbitrationinlnternationalConmercialArbitratiol,is',,onthesaidbasis,the
on behalf of the
accepted the contention
judgment
in the impugned
High court at Madras
Respondentlawfirmsandaisopointedo,.u,nu,u60thatsuchanargumgntwouldbecounterof international arbitration
to make India a hub
Go,.**.nt
Indian
the
of
productive to the aim
.andwouldalsoresulttna,,manifestlyabsurdsituafionwhereinonlylndiancitizenswithlndian
lawdegreewhoareenrolledasanadyocateun'dertheAdvocatesActcouldpracticeforeign
law""

'

is

but
l0.Irespectfullysubmitthatthefindingsinparagraph63(ii)and(iii)arewellfoundedinlawand
its own eariier position
only inconsistent with
not
is
Apperlant
by the
the contention .uken

alsounsupportedbytheprovisionsoftheAdvocatesAct,lg6lortheBarCounciloflndiaRules.

Accordingly,thereisnothinginconectinanyofthefindingsintheimpugnedjudgmentwhich
by this Hon'ble Court'
deserves any interference

f,hE

lr,,t'"'

W\*NA

London,Eng]alo

[ilJ*Hil;taamonde]

11'Withoutprejudicetotheabovecontentions,sincetherearenodirectallegationsagainstthe
AnsweringRespondentinthespecialLeavePetition,Irespondparawiseonlytothequestionsof
Higir Court'
law raised before this Hon'ble

12.withrespecttoparagraph2(A)oftheSpecialLeavePetition'IsubmitthattheAppeilant's
questioniiverydifferentfromthefindingmadebytheHighCourtatMadrasinparagraph63(i)
oftheimpugnedjudgment.Paragraph63(i)statesthatforeignlawfirmsorforeignlawyerscannot

practicetheprofessionoflawinlndiaeitheronthelitigationornon-lidgationside,unlessthey
fulfiltherequirementsoftheAdvocatesAct,lg6landtlreBarCouncilofindiaRules.However,
appearingbeforeanArbitralTribunalinrespectofadisputearisingunderforeignlawshouldnot
at Madras
Therefore, the High court
be considered as

.practicing, the profession of raw in lndia.

come
clarifiedwhatconstitutespracticrngtheprofessionoflaw.ItisinthisregardthattheHiglrCourt
cannot be debaffed to
stated: "Joreign lawyers
63(iii)
paragraph
in
its f,rnding
at Madras, in

tolndiaandconductarbitrationproceedingsinrespectofdisputesarisingoutoJ,aContract
commercial arbitration"
relating to international

'

13'Withrespecttoparagraph2(B)oftheSpecialLeavePetition,theissrteindisputeiswhetherit
on a mattel of foreign
1961 if advice is given
Act'
Advocates
the
of
breach the provisions
would

lawonaflyinandflyoutbasisbyaforeignlawyerorforeignfirm'However,theHighCourtat
Madrasfoundinparagraph63(ii)thatprovidinglegaladvicetoclientsinlndiaregardingfbreign

lawonaflyinandflyoutbasiswouldnotbreachiY.":theprovisionsoftheAdvoca.tesAct,
lg6l.TheHighCourtatMadrasheidthatgivingsuclr"u^"'.:ontemporaryvisitsona..flyinand
flyoutbasis,,doesnotconstitute..practicing,'tireprofessionoflawwhichistheprohibition
of theAdvocates Act' 1961'
imposed by Section 29

,ll,Withrespecttoparagraph2(C)ofthespecialLeavePetition,thequestionraisediswhethera
personnotenroiledasanadvocateundertheAdvocatesAct,lg6lcanbeallowedto..carryon
legalprofession,,.Paragraph63(i)confirmsthatapersonnotenrolledasan..Advocate,'inlrrdia
or non,itigation side'
whether on the ritigation
India
in
law
of
the profession
cannot practice

.Therefore,IamadvisedthatthiscannotformagroundforappealbeforethisHon,bleCourt.

of the word 'practice''

petition, involves the. interpretation
Leave
Speciar
the
of
visit or a
15. paragraph 2(D)
as opposed to a fleeting
and systematic activity
.Pracdce, contemplates a continuous

transitorypresenceforgivingadviceonmattersofforeignlaworconductofarbitrationgoverned
:
v!

't,;','
:.t::.:.

):,,:'.'

'.:'14:t

byforeignlaw.IsubmitthattheHighCourtatMadraswasjustifredinfindingthatthereisnobar

eitherintheActortheRulesforforeignlawfirmsorforeignlauyerstovisitlndiafora

PW

London, Englann

ffiti.

Hvot-'aamonde)

for the purpose of giving legal advice

temporary period on a fly in and fly out basis,

to

clients in

IndiaregardingforeignlawortheirownSystemoflawandondiverseinternationalissues'Tlrere
63(i)
by the High Court at Madras in paragraph
is nothing inconsistent between the findrngs made
and 63(ii) of the impugned judgment'

16. With respeci to paragraph 2(E)

of the Special Leave Petition,

submit that there is nothing

keeping in
Court at Madras that law must be interpreted
enoneous about the hndings of the High
is conducted'
the international nature of business that

mind

of the Special leave Petition,

17. With respect to paragraph 2(F)
paragraph 63(iii)

of the impugned judgment is

consistent

submit that the finding made in

with the High court at Madras

from the conduct ofspecific arbitral proceedings

interpretation that the practice oflaw is ditferent
Therefore' the contention ihat even a temporary
relating to International Commercial Arbitration'

ortransientpresenceofforeignlawyersorforeignlawfirmsinlndiawouldamountto

no enor which
,practicing, Iaw in India is unfounded and without basis' consequently there is
of the findings made by the High court at
interference by this Hon'ble Courr oir any

warrants the

Madras in the imPugned judgment'

1g. Therefore,

toforeignlawyerswhovisitlndiatemporarilyoronaflyinflyoutbasistoadviseclientson
Arbitration' I believe that eacir of these
foreign iaw or to conduct lntemational commercial

ci.

country' Nothing
to regulatory supervision in their own home
Respondent law firms are subject
firms
judgment gives rise to a view that the foreign law
contained in any hnding of the impugned

'.:).

,::

jurisdiction of the Appellant that could be extended

I submit that there is no regulatory

are allowed to practice in India even

if

24 of the
they do not satisfy the eligibility of Section

Advocates Acq 1961'

:i-/
19.

::1

:i

impugnedjudgment.IfurthersubmitthattheStandtakenbytheAppellarrtresultsinanabsurd

l't'l

of foreign law and

be required to give advice on matters
situation where lndian lawyers would

tl
::,1

1,]

,j:i

conductlnternationalCommercialArbitrationswithinlndiaeventhoughtheywouldnotbe

,:l

.\
:.:a

and there is no
in paragraph 5 of this appeal are valid
submit that no'ne of the grounds raised
in paragraph 63 or elsewhere in the
the findings of the High court at Madras

error in ariy of

.,1

.ll

it,,.:

'.:.;1,

may even breach the regulations of otirer

qualified to practice foreign law. Such an interpretation
without
to practice of foreiga lal by Indian lawyers
foreign jurisdictions as it may amount
same'
meeting the eligibility criteria for the

::,',1

:1

r,lrl

;i+"

:.::l

;-.,i*

:i]
::;|
!:ri
'.iJ

ii

..: ;,1

;).ii
, iil
.'.,'.i
.:

iii

.:::]i
; ',,i'
:.iri
r:ii

:!ll

:.:::,:

:',:r::1,
:::a., '

:it')i l

i.1!;r
,.a::,lr:

rrt{.

I'li:i

::.))

ffw

N. HYde-Vaamonde'

\r/

-b+
Special Lea

20.AstherearenospecificallegationsagainsttheAnsweringRespondentinthe
Answering
petition, I seek the liberty to file an additional affidavit at a later stage, if the
that are made'
Responcient feels the need to respond to any allegations

2l.TheAppellanthasnotmadeoutanycaseforthegraniorcontinuationofanyoftheintenmrelief.
basis'
appeal are denied as unjustified and without
The allegations contained in paragraph 6 ofthe
22. Inview of the above,

it is therefore humbly

prayed that this Hon'bie Court may be pleased to

costs and thus relder justice'

dismiss the special Leave Petition with exemplary

y
(

Solemnly affirmed at:

Bankside House
107 Leadenhall Street
London EC3A 4A-F

on this the

O7

daY of FebruarY 2013

signed her name in mY Presence

l,blaly Pubk

'tt'
,.

Loll:f^:*:ld

a'.

TN

t-

3vv

TI.IE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

oRDER XVr RUr-E 4(lxA)

CIVIL APPELLAl'E JURIS DICTION

SPECiAL LEAVE PETITION
(under Article 136 of thc Constitution of india)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIWL) NO. 17150 of 2012

IWITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEFI

itr:

':t.

IN THE MATTER OF:

(Arisingoutoftheirnpugnedjudgrnentandfinal orderdated2l .)L.2ll2passedbytheHon'bleLlighcourtofJudicaturearMadras

in WP No. 561412012)

BETWEBN
The Bar Council of India,
21, Rouse Avenue,

Institutional Area, New Delhi

l0

002.

... Appellant/ Re.spondent rr-o. 7

vs

A.K. Balaji
7

ll07 , Mel Batcha Pet,

Harur, TamilNadu 636 903

.. Respondent

No.li Petitioner

And 40 others.

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALT OF RESPONDENT NO3.6

I,

Shane Thomas Kyriakou, son

101

of Thomas Kyriakou, aged about

4l years having an office at l{crbert Smith Freehills.

CollinsStreet,Melbounte,Victoria,Australiadoherebysolemnlyaffirmandsincerelystateasl.oilows:

I am a member and paftner in the 36th Respondent Firm (hereinafter"Answering

Responderrt"). I am authorizeri to frle

r6rs

affidavit on behalf of the Answering Respondent.

1_

At the outset, I state that the above Special Leave Petition filed against the impugned judgment
ancl order dated 2l

0l.l0ij

passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Madras ("the High Court at Madras") in Wp No.56l 4

of 2010 is misconceived.
not maintainable in law or on the facts and should be dismissed with exemplary
costs. I submit that

none of the questions ol'

law raised by the Appellant arise out of the impugned order or are
of such nature that warrant anv interference bv th is Court
in an appeal against the impugned order.

I deny

each and every allegation mentioned in the Special Leave Petition so far
as they relate to the Answcring Responcent

save those that are expressly admitted herein,

I subnrit that the Answering Respondent is a parlnership in Austraiia and is

regulated in Australia by, amongst others, the Law Sociery- of New

South Wales, the Law Institute ol Victoria, the.L,aw
Society of Western Australia and the Queensland Law Sociery. The firm's principal
office is at MLC Centre, I9 Martin
Place' Sydney, New'South Wales, Atrstralia. On 1 October 2012 Freehills
mergecl with

Herbert Srnith LI-p, the

Respondent Firm. On the sarne day Freehills'narne was changed

22,,d

to Herbert Snrith Freehills. The rnerged firnr.

rrs

subsidiaries and the 22"d Respondent has an international legal practice

with over 2,800 lawyers in offlces in. arnong other
places, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and the
USA. I subrnit that the Answer.ing Respondent has grorip olfices
w'orldwide

hrrl rnt in I-,.1;. Tr l^^-

t-^..^

t-. ,

3\v N

'lhe Answering Respcndent cloes not seek to operate an office in india by

law to its clients as alleged by the Appellant.

to
present situation, the Answering Respondent being dragged
using liotel rooms or private premises either, Therelore in the
High courl at Madras is highly misconceived and pre.iudicial to
the Apex court to answer on matters never raised before the
the interests of the Answering Respondent'

in any Indian law firm, whether by partnership'

submit that the Answering Respondent does not have an interest
relationship with any Indian law firrn' The Ansrvering
shareholding or affiliation. It does not have an alliance-rype
regulations and the Answering
carry on the practice of law in India in contravention of Indian

Respondent does not

of lndian law firms to provide effective assistance to clients' The

law The Ansrvering
parties in the Indian courts, nor does it advise on lndian

Respondent only instructs and works with a number

Answering Respondent does not represent

borilers and jurisdictions and which depends on la"ryers

Respondent acts on matters for clients whose business spans across
in India, work done by the Answering Respcndent is
who understand the nature of their business. With regard to business
or business organizations, or in connection
in connection with investment outside India by Indian based companies
either

outside India or lndian based conlpanies on

with investrnent into India by companies and other business organizations based
wish to buy interests in business organizations
other than Indian law. This includes representing clients who
matters

ol law

and/or companies or setting up

joint ventures or lending money to Indian companies where the governing law of

the

jurisdictions in which we practice law. [n shoft the '{nsu'ering

transaction Australian Iaw or the law of one of the other
lrom an international perspective, to clients on
Respondent acts on international transactions where it gives advice,
A.ustralian law or one of the other laws mentioned above'
5.

visit lndia to promote the firm and to visit clients and business
Staff from the Answering Respondent,s various offices may
way
held in lndia. I submit that these instances can in no
contacts. This may include giving talks and attending conferences
referred to above which involve tndian law' we work
be construed as legal practice in India. [n all matters of the kind
of matters not involving Indian larv' we also
alongside lndian law firms who provide Indian law advice; in the majority
is fully entitled to engagc in the activities that are
work alongside Indian law firms. Therefore the Answering Respondent
to the practice of law in India and
I submit that none of the Answering Respondent's activities amount
described above.

authorities.
therefore cannot be subject to the regulatory control ofthe Indian
Respondent by christopherJohn Humphrey Parsotls
I have otherwise read the affidavitto be subrnitted on behatf of the22nd
those
to 22 (incrusive) of that affidavit. I agree with and adopt
before this Flon,ble court and specificatty paragraphs 5

Firm.
paragraphs of Mr parson's affidavit on behalf of the 36tl' Respondent
in the Special Leave Petition, I seek the liberly to file
As there are no specific allegations against the Answering Respondent
feels the need to respond to any allegations that are
an additional affidavit at a later stage if the Answering Respondent

7i:1.

made during a later stage in the appeal.

,|l

g.

may be pleased to disrriiss the Special Leave

[n view of the above, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court

Petition withexemplarycostsandthusrenderjustice'

l-,+

b*t2,4;'r4itcd

in

l*' 4"'^l

Ssbl Plea4'4 a'rceyf to qra'uc)'

l: il* k*t^u*"
e't '

tun'+-paFH

Solemnly affirmed at Sydney, Australia

on this tlie eighth day of February, 2013

BEFORE ME

and signed his name in mY Presence

Gordurrffavid CooPer