A. K. Balaji vs Government of India - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 918

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 918

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, M.Y.EQBAL
A. K. Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner:Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Ezhilarasan & Mr. N. Karthikeyan For Respondents 1 to 6:Mr.M.Ravindran, Addl. Solicitor General assisted by Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, SCGC For Respondent 7:Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan For Respondent 8:Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General for Mr.S.Y.Masood For Respondent 9: Ms.P.T.Asha, for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents 10, 16, Mr.Arvind P.Datar, Senior Counsel 19, 26, 39 & 40 & R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Rishi Kumar
For Respondent 11:: Mr.Satish Parasaran
For Respondent 12:: Notice Sent. Service Awaited.
For Respondents 14, 20,:: Dr.Abhishek M.Singhvi 21, 24, 25, 27, 28 & 30 for M/s.R.Senthil Kumar & Rahul Balaji
For Respondents 31, 32,::Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel 33, 34 & 38 for M/s.R.Senthil Kumar & Rahul Balaji For Respondent 15:: Mr.Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.N.Suchindran
For Respondent 23:: Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sundar Narayanan
For Respondents 22 & 29:: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.K.Bhaskar
For Respondent 41:: Ms.D.Prasanna
For Respondents 36 & 37:: Mr.K.S.Natarajan
For Respondents 17 & 35:: Mr.Vineet Subramani

O R D E R

The Hon ble the Chief Justice

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 8 to take appropriate action against respondents 9 to 40 or any other Foreign Law Firm or Foreign Lawyers, who are illegally practising the Profession of Law in India, and for a further direction to forbear them from having any legal practice either on the litigation side or in the field of non-litigation and commercial transactions, in any manner whatsoever within the territory of India.

2. The grounds on which the writ petitioner places his reliance are summarized in a nutshell herein below :-

Enrolment :

(a) It is stated that the writ petitioner is an active practitioner of law having enrolled himself in the State Roll maintained by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as per Section 17 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is stated that to practice the profession of law in India, a person should be a citizen of India and should possess a Degree in Law obtained from a Recognised University within the Territory of India. It is further stated that Nationals of any other country may also be admitted as an Advo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(Mad) 918

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, M.Y.EQBALA. K. Balaji – AppellantVersusGovernment of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, M.Y.EQBAL
A. K. Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent