Interviews
Edition 2: On the two sides of Litigation, Leadership and the Evolution of Dispute Resolution Practice with Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja
Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India, Senior Partner, Karanjawala & Co. | Dispute Resolution
In this conversation, Ms. Ahuja reflects on the realities of building a career at the Bar, from the path to becoming an Advocate-on-Record to the practical craft of advocacy, briefing senior counsel, and understanding court practice across forums. She also speaks candidly about the patience and long-term commitment that litigation demands from young lawyers entering the profession. Her noteworthy legal journey makes for an exceptional interview on the two sides of Litigation, Leadership and the Evolution of Dispute Resolution Practice, where she discusses how lawyers must balance client expectations with the reality of litigation. She speaks about the craft of advocacy, both inside and outside the court.
Writ & Ramble: So, needless to say, we are very honoured to feature you in our magazine, and we are sure that our viewers would be so excited to hear from someone who is so established in this field.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: Thank you for having me.
Writ & Ramble: So, starting with the first question, becoming an Advocate on record (“AOR”) is often described as a turning point rather than a qualification, and I feel like a lot of people who study law look at this as the next point in their career. So, what do you believe is the correct way to go about it? What is the process of becoming one, and how do students fresh out of college increase their chances of becoming an AOR in the long run?
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: So, first of all, if I’m not wrong, you need to have an experience of four years at the bar, and then, one year of training under an AOR. I don’t know whether that has undergone a change or not. But anybody who wants to become an AOR, though the training period is essentially only for one year, it is a formal training period for which you have to inform the authorities (that you have started your training), and then you have to get a certificate from the person under whom you have trained. But it’s important, I would advise that before you go, don’t treat it as only a one-year training period, because that doesn’t help. See, an AOR exam has pleadings, drafting, judgements, everything, so a person must spend 4-5 years with an AOR, if not with an AOR, somebody with a large practice in the Supreme Court (“SC”). Hence, you get familiarised with the practice, procedure, rules, etc. of the court. Learn the drafting and then undergo formal training, which is required for you to become eligible to write the exam. So, it is not necessary that as soon as you walk out of a law school, you start running towards becoming an AOR. I don’t agree with that. Various other forums are available to you, such as the High Court (“HC”). If you really only want to go to the SC, that is a separate story, but I don’t think so. In today’s age, numbers are very high, and competition is too much; you should not just focus on learning the SC work. Anyone coming out of the SC as a young fresher must work in lower courts, forums, the HC and then work in the SC. There is no harm in spending 2-3 years of your life learning other work. Original side work is also very, very important. Even if you get a chance to work with somebody whose primary practice is in SC, because everyone needs a job at the end of the day, no harm. But then work with that person for 3-4 years before you submit your certificate to the authorities, signifying that you have commenced your formal training. And then write the exam.
Writ & Ramble: Right. Just as a follow-up, what do you believe is the best thing for a fresh graduate to do if they want to reach the pinnacle of litigation? What do you think is the best starting point if they really want to make a litigation career stand out?
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: See, I don’t think any of us has reached the pinnacle. I don’t know what
pinnacle that is. What one should rather look at is what path one should take if one wants to do reasonably well, establish oneself, or simply get into litigation. See, firstly, whoever has to get into litigation has to realise that the road is very, very long. Nowadays, you have the advantage of law firms; they have very good litigation teams, and the remuneration is also very decent. But still, the competition is too much, and the vacancies are fewer. You may not get a job in a Tier 1 law firm and may have to work for less salary. A very big problem in litigation, as I see now, is that before you start earning reasonably well enough to have a comfortable life, the road is very long. It was long earlier also, but now the competition is becoming tougher and tougher. So, you have to realise that, and then if you compare with an in-house Counsel, or a non-litigation job, there the remuneration is better. So, I personally feel that for litigation, firstly, you will have to tell yourself that “I am okay. This is going to be tough, but I want to do it.”
It’s very taxing physically, and sometimes even emotionally. It’s taxing physically because in India, especially in Delhi, the weather is not very cohesive in June and July. You have to be tough; you have to stand in Court all day. So, physical fitness, I personally feel, sometimes plays a role. You do become exhausted. And then, there are long hours. For instance, if Monday to Friday from 10:30 to 4:30 you are in Court, then when will you do your drafting? When will you do your reading? When will you do your briefing? So invariably, your day ends at 9, 9:30? For some younger lawyers, sometimes it may end at 11:30, 12 o’clock also. So that’s why it becomes physically taxing.
Of course, you get some holidays, vacations, where you can catch up on your sleep, but the day-to-day is difficult. This is because you may feel that if you start your practice after five years, you may get clients, but you may not. You feel, “My God, why am I not earning like that, why am I not earning like this?” You compare yourself to very, very established seniors, and you feel that you will never reach that level. So, I feel that emotionally also, it becomes draining. If you compare other professions, for instance, an MBA, in five years, would be earning very well; or, for instance, a doctor in a private hospital, must be getting by very well, which doesn’t happen with lawyers. So, I think it’s a tough profession; it takes its toll, but if you enjoy it, you must do it.
Writ & Ramble: I think your answer feels so bittersweet in a way; it’s so real, but it’s also so daunting. The litigation journey as a whole is so daunting.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: Yes, I’m not going to sit here and say, oh what fun it is to argue! All that is there, but I have myself gone through that journey, and I know how tough it is. Sometimes you even need the support of your parents. However, there is also a brighter side. The profession really is interesting; it keeps you alive, agile, and you are never bored. Every day, there is a new case, a new judgment coming. Nowadays, a lot of political cases end up in court; it is interesting to see the evolution of laws around social issues like dowry, maintenance, etc. You get a full landscape of social, political, and economic issues if you are in court. So, I totally agree with the understanding that it’s not boring, it’s better than sitting at your desk and making a draft agreement. But you have to be prepared that it is going to be taxing, and remuneration will take its time before you feel as if you have made enough for a comfortable life.
Writ & Ramble: Right, I believe that is absolutely true, and who would know better than you in this regard! Moving on, one very interesting aspect, which a lot of young lawyers know very little about, is briefing, despite it being such an important part of one’s career. So, would you like to talk about some of your favourite briefs and what you think is the most common mistake young lawyers nowadays make while briefing seniors?
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: I won’t call it a mistake, but I feel like when you go to a senior, there is more than one way to brief. It depends on senior to senior. One senior may prefer that you give your factual narration first. When you are giving a factual narration, you have to be smart to ensure your factual narration is in 10 minutes or less, while the counsel sitting opposite to you should know that this is the core issue in the matter. You have to master the facts of your matter. If you don’t know the facts of your matter, then you are in difficulty because there’s no point; you will obviously look up the law, and you will obviously read the judgment. But I think the first thing is that any lawyer who can learn the facts would do well. The facts of your matter should be at your fingertips, because otherwise, how will you strategise, how will you know what all to discuss with the senior, what sort of stay order will protect your client?
You know, it’s rather unfortunate, sometimes so many people blindly write, “Please stay the order of the HC”. Now, what has the HC done? You filed a Writ Petition, and the HC has dismissed it. So now, what happens? Even if you stay it, it has no meaning. To put it in perspective, suppose you ask the HC to quash a circular, right? HC has not quashed that circular and dismissed your Writ Petition. Now, even if you get a stay of the HC order, it doesn’t help you, no? So, you will have to apply your mind and think about what is required to be asked of the SC. So, how will you go about it then? You must know the facts of the case and the requirements of the client. As they say, you may ask for the moon, you may not get a moon, then you will also have to discuss with your client, “Are you happy with a star?” So, you know, that is why, have a grip on your facts, and your list of dates. I am not saying that the list of dates should be short, but it should be crisp. To give you a very basic example, people say “counter affidavit file, rejoinder affidavit file”. Now, if you are going to write that, you will go with a list of dates of 40 pages to a senior counsel who is reading 5 briefs for the next day. He is going to get bored after 3 pages. He will say, “Tell me what the issue is!” So, you will have to make sure that your list of dates is crisp so that all your facts, in whatever time the senior counsel has given you, are before him. Because ultimately, he has to argue based on your briefing. If your briefing is not correct, then it’s not his fault. Therefore, you must know what your best points are, so that you can discuss those points with the counsel. And the senior counsel will be able to identify what will fly or not, which is why you go to a senior counsel in the first place. Therefore, I think first things first, please master your facts, please know what all is on record, please read the office report. One would think that the office report probably would not be as material, but Mr. Nariman used to teach us to read the office report also. You might know if someone else has filed a Writ Petition, you will know how many lawyers are in the court, and all these things matter.
Writ & Ramble: That’s very insightful. Moving ahead, leaning away from briefing and going more into advocacy, what do you think are certain qualities that a counsel would exhibit or simply state in their arguments that would inspire judicial confidence, and what do you think are certain common traits found across successful arguing counsels?
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: What I see with top seniors is that they know what to begin their case with. With certain skills, they master their art, and that is why they are where they are. So, the point is, talking about an SC matter, if you are the petitioner, your client has already lost in the HC. The SC under Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) is sitting in a very discretionary jurisdiction. I mean, every SLP doesn’t need to have notice issued; it can be dismissed at the very first date. So, it’s important that, the best point in matter, whether it is a point of prejudice or of mala fide against the other side, or even if it means wrong interpretation of law, or that there are concrete judgements of various HCs, these are very basic fundamental principles that you should open the matter with. Then, you present facts, and after that, say what the issue is all about. If you start by saying “in 1972, a suit was filed in this, that…” then the judge may not be interested, so you will have to bring the interest of the Court faster than later and tell what the issue is, what the HC did wrong, and why the court should interfere. This is how advocacy becomes better. The clearer you are, the better it is. When I say clearer, it doesn’t mean that you need to cite every judgment available; you don’t need to. If you ask me, to get a notice issued in any court, be it the SC, HC, or trial court, you don’t need to start with the judgements unless you feel that there is a judgement bang on the point and the HC has not considered that. But if you consider concepts like promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, etc. you will realise that these are known concepts; don’t start citing judgements on these concepts to judges, who have so much experience on hand.
Writ & Ramble: Absolutely, so you are saying that, bring the contentious or the most controversial point at the very beginning so that it piques the interest of the court.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: Exactly, and put forth your point, what you think is the best point in your case. Start with that; you have to get the judges’ interest right at the beginning. Don’t forget, there are some cases where you have lost in two courts, and you still want the SC to interfere in your matter, so you have to bring the best point right at the beginning.
Writ & Ramble: Right, so when you deal with different kinds of clients, I’m sure you run into situations where the client’s commercial expectations are misaligned with respect to reality or the facts. So how do you deal with a situation like that? How do you counsel the client in that case?
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: See, I don’t belong to that school of thought, as a lawyer, who believes in telling the client that “It’ll be done”. Though I will fight it for you, I don’t believe in giving false hopes, because the client must be in the know. And as far as matching their expectation is concerned, you have to sit with them, show some empathy, and learn and listen to what they are saying. They have led a very long battle. Doing litigation in India is not very easy, for individuals and even for corporates, as it’s pocket heavy, it takes time, energy, and sometimes it’s very delayed. So, it’s important that you hear your client with empathy, and you must be clear with them. It’s like, if you can’t get them the moon, can you get them a star? And if you feel that, “Oh my God! This case is such that there are no chances for success”, financially it’s not going to happen, so then you will have to, maybe, depending on the case, sit with them and explain alternatives.
For tender matters, for instance, so many times people come and say that they have satisfied this condition, that condition, so on and so forth. But there is enough law that has settled these issues. You get some idea also, with your experience, as to whether the court will interfere or not. This is how you guide them. A lot of it is guesswork, and sometimes you have to do hand-holding also.
Writ & Ramble: So just keep alternatives available at all times.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: If they are, then why not? Even in the worst circumstances, there is a way to say things. You cannot just pick up the file and say that there is nothing in your matter.
Writ & Ramble: This actually reminds me of one of the briefings that I had sat in before a very renowned Senior Advocate, and we, in this particular case, had more or less no precedent because it was a very new sort of factual scenario, and I remember him saying that don’t say that there’s nothing because there’s always a way. There’s always some way to go about it.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: Yes, that’s true, but I also believe that sometimes there is no way, but you can still counsel your client well.
Writ & Ramble: Coming to our last question, what I really wanted to know from you, considering you have had a fairly broad practice. Do you believe that advocates should, at some point in time, look at specialisation, and at the beginning of the career, have a broad-based practice? What do you think is the right way to go about it, and what is the permutation and combination that they should follow with respect to a healthy litigation practice?
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: You know, that’s a very good question. I think if you are very, very sure that you want to specialise, then why not? Because these days, all the new lawyers, young lawyers, have the advantage of Internships. This was not there when we joined the profession. But now everyone is doing 3-4 internships a year. If, after your internships, you want to specialise in one branch, please go ahead. But always remember one thing, as I see, that every specialisation, especially sectoral specialisation, has a shelf life. There was a time when telecom was at its peak, and there was so much litigation happening in it. Same with excise, I remember going to the excise tribunal a lot. Then the law changed, and a lot of the law settled. So, one of the concerns is that sectoral specialisation may have a shelf life.
But subject-wise specialisation is not bad, if you want to do it, it’s not bad. Some people specialise in intellectual property, some in commercial law. The problem arises if you have done it for 5-6 years, and then you shift and say, now I want to do something different at a different law firm. Of course, you can, but they don’t treat your experience as 5-6 years of experience, because they would say that you don’t know other courts. I’m very, very conscious that today the demand for jobs is so high and at the same time the supply so low, so there are fewer jobs in the market. So, if you are getting a good job in a fairly okay subject specialisation, please go for it if you are interested. If you have zero interest, then it’s a separate story altogether.
I met somebody recently, and I was surprised by what that person was doing. He was quite young, and I don’t blame him, because you know, there is no, as such, mentoring nowadays. So, he was saying, you know, that one year I’ll work here, another year I’ll work here, then I will decide after 5 years. You know, it’s not a buffet. You can specialise in the long run, but in one year, you’ll know nothing. You will only know how an IBC proceeding is filed, or what the basic parameters of S. 241, S. 242 under the Companies Act are. You can’t just keep on shifting your goalpost so soon. That sort of attitude is also not correct. As I said, the gestation period is very, very long; you need to have patience. Patience is the key in this profession. Patience, hard work, and less money, these are the three terms I associate with litigation. If you’re okay to do that for 10 years of your life, then come to litigation. It’s tough.
Writ & Ramble: So, you believe that one should definitely stick to wherever they are for some time, at least.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: Of course, why not! If you are absolutely bored or other circumstances are forcing you to leave, then it’s a different story. But you cannot say that I am going to try here for one year, here for another year, you won’t learn anything. One year is a very short time; out of that, a lot of time is court holidays. So that formula, that you will work for 5 lawyers in 5 years and then decide what to do, does not work. See, what you must understand is that when you come as a fresher, a senior takes a lot of time to guide you, to train you. Nobody is interested in training or guiding you if you will leave after 6 months to one year. Let’s be candid.
Writ & Ramble: Definitely, I think that makes a lot of sense. It’s a lose-lose situation for both.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: Yes, exactly.
Writ & Ramble: So that brings us to the end of the interview. Thank you so much for joining and taking the time for this. This made for a very interesting conversation.
Ms. Ruby Ahuja: No issues at all, I think it went quite well.
Edition 1: On Regulation, Resilience, and the Reinvention of Corporate Law in India with Mr. Chandrasekhar Tampi
As a part of the inaugural issue of Writ & Ramble, Mr. Tampi opens up a remarkably candid, thoughtful journey through corporate law in India, from the serendipity that drew him to the profession to the deals that shaped his worldview. He reflects on the early grind, the mentors who defined his discipline, and how persistence becomes a lawyer’s sharpest tool. The interview moves seamlessly from regulatory nuance, multiple regulators, foreign law firm entry, and the gaps in India’s merger and NCLT framework, to the very human side of being a lawyer. What makes this interview exciting is the way he blends lived experience with grounded advice, offering clarity on complex systems while reassuring young lawyers that the path, though demanding, is absolutely navigable. It’s both a roadmap and a rare, honest peek into the making of a modern corporate lawyer.
Partner, Luthra and Luthra
Mergers & Acquisitions | Projects, Energy & Infrastructure
Raaghavi: Let’s start at the beginning. We’ve read about your career journey, and it’s incredibly inspiring to both of us, especially because it spans some of the most complex corporate transactions. What first drew you to law, and why this specific field?
Mr Tampi: Okay, I don’t think I started off wanting to be a lawyer, in the sense that there was no one in my family who was a practicing lawyer. My dad, my grandfather, both studied law but never practiced as they joined the civil services. So technically, I’m a first-generation lawyer. For me, I think it’s events or circumstances and people. I say that because, you know, first of all, like I said, I never wanted to do law. So the reason why I started LLB in Delhi University was because someone told me that if you write the law entrance and if you do well you will get the hostel. That’s how it stared.
So anyway, I joined because I needed a place to stay in Delhi, and then the difficult part was the exams. So like I said, events and people. Throughout my career it’s been people who always helped and that's how I got through law school. I had a friend, he was a batches above me, who would sit with me the day before exams from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. and help me prepare since I was taking my civil service exams on the side.
Somewhere along the way, I realised that it is a good backup to have a professional degree.. That’s what I advise now if someone comes to me today to ask me what one should do. I always say that it’s very important to have a professional qualification, be it a CA or a law. With AI coming in and a lot of jobs disappearing, new opportunities come up, and having a professional degree can help withstand this.
After graduation, someone from a law firm asked what I wanted to do when I was in my final year. I ruled out civil services because I had already tried and didn't succeed and I did not wish to take all the attempts. At the time, I had assumed lawyers meant litigators - those who appeared in court. He suggested I try a corporate internship to get a hang of things. In those days, nobody in Law Fac (Law Faculty, Delhi University) did internships. It was a big tax firm at the time, and I did a series of internships at the same firm (since attendance was not really an issue), and that really grabbed my interest.. I joined Dua Associates when the opportunity came along, which was among the four big Delhi firms at the time, alongside Amarchand Mangaldas, Jyoti Sagar, and Luthra & Luthra. So like I said, it has been events and people and a series of fortunate accidents and luck that has helped me reach where I am today!
Ria: This sounds really fascinating because we are at such a nascent stage of this entire story that you have put forth. We have so much left to do, and this story puts it all in a landscape view as to what needs to be done to become significant in this field. So moving forward...
Do you remember your first transaction, something that made you realize this is what you wanted to do?
Mr. Tampi: Yes, it was a deal between Lucent Technologies and Shyam Telecom in 2001. It introduced me to vendor financing, where the vendor (the person who is selling the equipment) finances the person who is buying it. Lucent was a supplier of telecom equipment- we were representing them. I was just a first-year associate, brought in to do due diligence. It took about 4 months. I personally learnt a lot since all of this was new to me. In college, I had opted for subjects such as Law and Poverty, International law of War and Peace, Criminology and Gender Justice, etc. It was a quantum leap from there to corporate law, and it took more than a bit of learning and patience (of others).
But the transaction that truly inspired me came later - a carbon-credit transaction for Gujarat Fluorocarbons involving the European Climate Exchange. It harmonised shareholder interest with environmental responsibility, and it made me realise that, as corporate lawyers, we aren’t just buying and selling shares; our work can make a tangible difference. That felt good, and it definitely set the course for me!
Raaghavi: I think it’s quite evident from the way you speak about it, how genuinely fond you are of those initial transactional experiences. On a lighter note, one thing many of us struggle with today is maintaining a balance; how do you manage to handle such a demanding profession while still pursuing your personal interests? How do you switch off? From everything we’ve read about you, it seems you manage to do quite a lot outside of work as well.
Mr Tampi: I mean, I don't want to sound negative. In the early years, there’s hardly any work-life balance; you are learning and meeting deadlines. Initially, you do what you are asked to do, partners require things turned around faster, and your learning curve is steep. You essentially learn and work at the same time. So, very little time for yourself. We didn't have Saturdays off for a very long time. But then, over time, you learn to carve out space for yourself. I spend weekends reading, watching OTT shows, walking around Delhi in winter (Find more on Mr. Tampi’s Delhi cultural walks here). I also act in plays and attend poetry reading and have been a part of the annual Rekhta last year . It sounds like a lot, but then you have to understand that it is spread over 100-odd weekends in a year and if you plan it, it is quite manageable.
It’s important to switch-off from work occasionally. That’s what keeps you fresh and creative.
Reading the Hindu on Sunday, for example, is my ritual; it’s a dense paper, but incredibly enriching. I do spend time with family as well, but since my kids are off to college, it’s just me and my wife. Those small breaks make you better at both your work and your life outside of it.
Ria: I also really like reading the Hindu editorial. In fact, there was recently an incredible article about how the fiscal mechanism of the municipalities is completely disorganised, and it was such an interesting read (find it here). The thing about the Hindu editors is that they make even the most boring things sound very interesting.
Mr Tampi: I agree! Especially the Sunday Magazine.
Ria: Corporate lawyers today navigate a dense network of regulators: SEBI, RBI, CCI, NCLT. Do you think this multiplicity of authorities makes our system more robust, or does it increase uncertainty for investors and clients?
Mr Tampi: Multiplicity of regulators does not increase uncertainty per se, but it is the way laws work in our country that leads to uncertainty, right? In the sense that if, let’s say, a law is strict, which prohibits something, like you cannot have an Uber taxi in Delhi, then there is no uncertainty. It’s very, very clear that you cannot have Uber taxis in Delhi. But on the other hand, if a law says that you may or may not have an Uber taxi, depending upon the discretion of the licensing authority. Now that creates an uncertainty, unless the discretion of that authority is exercised judiciously and transparently. So, per se, the existence of multiple regulators does not increase uncertainty. The United States (“U.S.”) has a large number of regulators; they even regulate things like interstate commerce, for instance. There are regulators in the U.S. that also control telecom, telegraphic transfer of money, and that’s how wire fraud is caught. I mean, countries around the world have a lot of regulators, but there are two things to it. First, the law has to be certain, in the sense that the sphere in which the regulator functions has to be certain. So, you know before you approach the regulator what their function is and the extent of the law that can be applied. Secondly, if there is a lot of discretion given to the regulator, then that discretion has to be exercised judiciously and its exercise has to be transparent.
So both these things together, the substantive part of law and the procedural part of law, together decide certainty. And that is how it works. I feel that we have a decent number of regulators (though not optimal), but the problem is not the existence of multiple regulators. The problem is that wherever there is discretion, it may not always be exercised judiciously or according to the spirit of law.
But then states like Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat have shown how things can work despite all of this. Their single-window clearances for industries is an example, right? It’s what you call plug and play. If you want to set up a factory in Gujarat or Andhra Pradesh, or get land records there, it’s much easier than, say, in West Bengal or Bihar. Regulators exist there too, laws exist, but things have been simplified.
So by itself, the number of regulators does not lead to uncertainty. How they exercise discretion or how the law is applied leads to uncertainty. Let me give you another example. During COVID, a number of countries brought about delegated legislations that regulated investments from China. It’s called Press Note 3 of 2020. Simply put, under Press Note 3, prior government approval is required for investments to be made by the Chinese. So, if the Chinese shareholder proposes to invest or increase its shareholding in an Indian company, it must approach the government for permission. Some approvals were given, some not, but no one knows why approvals are withheld. So, there is no transparency in how discretion was exercised. I’m not criticising the system, because there was national interest at stake, but three or four years later, people begin to question: how is the discretion exercised? How are some applications approved and others rejected? Discretion has to be exercised judiciously, transparently, and with certainty. That’s how it works, irrespective of how many regulators you have.
Raaghavi: On that note, since we’re talking about the regulatory ecosystem and how it’s evolving, another really important matter being discussed a lot is the entry of foreign firms in India and its effect on the regulatory landscape. What’s your take on that?
Mr Tampi: At the outset, this is my view and not necessarily that of the Firm that I work in. Post AK Balaji, foreign individuals and firms could fly in and fly for advice on foreign law and out for international commercial arbitrations in India, but not appear before Indian courts. That is still the case. Now, about foreign firms entering the market. Let’s see what benefits they bring. You’re the next generation of lawyers, and there’s a huge number of lawyers entering the market year on year. For instance, Jindal has what, 5,000 students in total? Maybe more.
Raaghavi: Yes, maybe even more, my batch alone has 800.
Mr Tampi: Okay, so I’m not sure what mode of entry for foreign firm are we (India) contemplating, but I’m optimistic about this. I’ve worked with foreign firms, outside India and with Indian law firms. I think foreign law firms entering India, in whatever form, has benefits.
For instance, India is the largest customer for SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre). If foreign firms come into India, we could become an arbitration hub rivalling Singapore due to the number of arbitration disputes we have. That means revenue, taxation, growth. Then there’s also, of course, knowledge transfer. Of course, increased competition also means better efficiency and delivery. Still, it brings investment, exposure, and global opportunities. Indian lawyers could move between offices globally just like foreign lawyers would come to India.
There are, of course, arguments against the entry of foreign firms. Foreign firms have deeper pockets and greater staying power. Smaller firms or individuals in India may struggle to compete. So, safeguards are needed. I’m in favour of entry, but it must be phased and regulated. Licensing requirements like bar exams etc, joint ventures with local attorneys, and a bar council mechanism to monitor them are essential.
Recently, the Bar Council even issued a notice about certain firms co-branding themselves with foreign firms. The Bar Council has advised against such Joint ventures in this point of time. So, regulation is key. If done right, this can help young lawyers get employment, improve practices, and build a global footprint. I’m enthusiastic but cautiously so, until a robust regulatory mechanism is in place. These views are fully personal though!
Ria: Right, so building on M&A, you’ve had extensive experience in that segment. If you could rewrite any law or process in M&A, what would it be?
Mr. Tampi: Rewrite law? [laughs] I rely on the wisdom of the legislature, they have to consider a large number of factors, including national security, public interest while I, as a lawyer look out for my client and their interests. But yes, there are areas that could change.
For instance, for mergers, demergers etc., I handle many cases before the NCLT. The problem is the limited number of benches. NCLT handles insolvency, bankruptcy, and company law matters, but insolvency takes priority. So, M&A and oppression/mismanagement cases are often delayed. These delays hurt companies, and benefits, including taxation post-merger, are as good as gone if the process stretches past a year or so, as is the case presently. I’ve seen oppression and mismanagement cases, where, by the time relief is granted, it is a nullity. The government seems to have taken cognisance, and the recent change in fast-track mergers between group companies is a welcome change. But delays still persist.
Raaghavi: Digressing a little from M&A since you mentioned oppression and mismanagement. I think during one of my internships, I noticed that when it comes to IBC matters, the Oppression and Mismanagement matters get pushed under the rug completely.
Mr Tampi: Absolutely! For instance, I had a client who was a 50% shareholder. His partner sold his shares fraudulently while he was on deputation to the Government of India. The aggrieved party went to the tribunal for interim relief and restoration of status quo. By the time the tribunal restored status quo, 3-4 years later, the company was drained of whatever value it had by the shareholder. This isn’t rare; it is quite common for company law matters to be placed down in the list. Maybe they can fill vacancies in the NCLT, add members and designate certain benches solely for company law. Delay hurts the aggrieved and rewards the offenders. So yes, more NCLT benches and prioritisation are critical.
Ria: So you have worked with some of the best minds in the field. What are some lessons or things that you've learned from fellow colleagues or clients that you'd like to elucidate on?
Mr. Tampi: Okay, so I used to work with an exceptional senior who is now a senior advocate. He was a senior partner in the litigation practice of Amarchand Mangaldas (then undivided). And I used to work with him on corporate law matters, i.e. transactional, non-contentious, non-litigation. The one thing that I learnt was persistence, in the sense that not giving up at any point in time till the very end, irrespective of what happened, irrespective of whether the decision goes against you.
He was extremely thorough, and then he was relentless in the sense that he was chasing the goal all the time, trying to see how he could help the client, how he could assist the client to the best of his abilities. And he led from the front, doing a lot of heavy lifting. And see, it is important for everybody to do that, but he was the best in the field. He is probably the leading arbitration expert in the country and probably, that is how he became what he became.
Putting in the effort and the hours, being thorough with your research, all that is absolutely essential. But the fact is that the relentlessness that I saw in him was above and beyond the call of duty.
See, people are persistent, people are hardworking, people are relentless. But he took it to a different level altogether, which is what was very impressive, inspiring and pushed his juniors to do the same.
Raaghavi: Okay, so I think I completely agree with you. I think I wouldn't have made it through law school itself if I were not persistent, because there are so many times that we keep on facing so many failures and we get bogged down. And then the one thing that we have to hold on to is persistence. Otherwise, I think none of us would have made it.
Okay, so the last question we have is associated with how (I feel) M&A and capital markets, in general, is seen as intimidating. As far as internships go, that’s what I’ve seen amongst my peers. Even though they're interested in it (before they go into that sort of an internship), they are often of the belief that it’s really complex. There is always a sort of fear as to whether we’ll be able to get the hang of it or not. So, what is your advice to a law student who is just manoeuvring their way through these fields and is just starting out, for instance, an internship in one of these fields? How should they go about it, and what are some key things they should keep in mind to make the best out of such internships?
Mr Tampi: So there are two ways of looking at it, one from the standpoint of the intern and one from the standpoint of the lawyer. So from the intern standpoint, I understand that it can be overwhelming because almost everybody looks at a few well-known areas when they want to join a law firm, such as M&A, capital markets, and then project finance and finally infrastructure. Most of the interns come saying that, M&A is what I want to do or capital markets, because it appears to be the “cooler” practice area.
From the standpoint of the intern, you're not going to join a firm tomorrow and then start complicated M&A transactions. So, that should dispel one of the fears about how much you know or will need to know as an intern. But then on the flip side, an internship is a leg up to get a job, so you want to impress the person you are with. So that you get a call back, and then after a call back, you get a PPO etc. That is of concern because it is not just you but number of law students who come for internships. So you are one of those many.
So if you're thinking of impressing the seniors by doing certain things, everybody else is too. To get a sense of the number of people, consider this. In a five-year law course, you start your internships in the second or third year. So in two years, you do so many internships, and one person does an average of about, let's say, six internships. In your college (Jindal) itself, there are 5000 students, so just imagine how many interns. The math is mindboggling, and everybody thinks of impressing the person (Partner/Mentor) to get a call back. So you should take comfort in the fact that for starters you are not alone but there are so many other people in the same boat. Maybe that will lighten your burden.
Thirdly, during internships, most of the work you’ll get isn’t about drafting complex documents, it’s about research. And that’s something your legal education has already trained you for. Be quick and thorough in your research, use reliable resources like SCC or Manupatra, and ensure your findings are relevant and precise. Thoroughness of research helps impress mentors.
Another key skill is time management, turning work around promptly and professionally. And don’t hesitate to ask your senior to clarify or break down assignments; it shows initiative, not weakness. The most ideal thing to do is take your research proposition, do preliminary research, take 15 minutes and write down all your doubts and clarify them all. Your task is to ask questions so you can get into the next phase of the research. This is also an important skill to have as a lawyer; whenever we are asked to give an opinion on something, there is constant back and forth between the client and us. The more detailed the information provided by the client, the more it helps us in understanding the facts and client’s expectation and responding accordingly. Therefore, the more questions you ask, the more it helps to steer your research in the right direction and make it relevant and useful. If I talk from the partner’s perspective; we work under very strict timelines. So turn up on time, deliver promptly and with thoroughness, demonstrate eagerness to take on work, and you can consider your job well done.
Finally, networking is crucial. Talk not just to partners or senior associates but also to other interns. Ten years down the line, they’ll be working in different firms, as in-house counsel, or independently. Those connections matter. And remember this, you don’t need to have every legislation confined to memory. What matters is knowing where to look and whom to ask. That’s what will carry you through the early years of your career.
Raaghavi: That’s very reassuring. I think a lot of people hesitate to ask questions out of fear of sounding stupid.
Mr Tampi: You are not expected to know everything. Honestly, there’s no such thing as a stupid question. Genuine curiosity is never foolish. You’re not expected to know everything, and the only way to learn is by asking.
Ria: That’s great advice. Would you like to add any final thoughts before we wrap up?
Mr Tampi: Just that, best of luck to you both. You’re in your fifth year now, right? I may not be the best or most inspiring example in my opinion (laughs), but despite coming from a non-law background, law not being the first career choice for the longest time, being from Delhi University of the 1990s and not a National Law University, if I can make it, anyone can!
Remember that law is a professional degree, and in the age of AI, that’s a real strength. The legal profession gives you something solid to fall back on and strike out on your own, even when the job market becomes unpredictable or the field is overcrowded.
And don’t be overawed by senior lawyers when you hear them speak. Because it comes from experience. It is just a matter of time. After 25 years, if you can’t speak with a fair bit of confidence and authority on the subject of your choosing, I don’t know what to say. You’ll pick things up much faster than you think. Best of luck!
Ria: Thank you so much! This has been incredibly insightful and encouraging. We had a blast!
Raaghavi: Thank you so much.
Mr Tampi: My pleasure, and all the best for your careers and the bar exam.