Founder

“I firmly believe that by embracing these two principles: maintaining patience during the foundational years and being open to diverse cases, young litigation lawyers can build a successful and fulfilling career in law.” – Amit A. Tungare, Managing Partner at Asahi Legal.

This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

You completed your Law degree while also pursuing a CS qualification. What inspired you to undertake both of these courses simultaneously and how has CS qualification helped you in your career?

My interest in corporate law first sparked during my 12th standard commerce studies, specifically through the organization of commerce subject. But the real turning point came during my law school admission day at ILS Law College. While waiting in the long admission queue, a chance conversation with a fellow aspirant introduced me to the Company Secretary (CS) program and its potential to enhance a legal career. This serendipitous encounter proved to be life-changing.

What made pursuing both qualifications simultaneously possible was the supportive environment at ILS Law College, which actively encouraged students to pursue additional professional qualifications. My hostel mates who were also pursuing their CS qualification became my support system and study partners. Their presence and mutual encouragement created an atmosphere of healthy competition and motivation. Looking back, I realize that the company you keep during your academic journey plays a crucial role in achieving your goals.

The combination of these qualifications has proven invaluable in my litigation practice. I draw upon my CS knowledge almost daily while handling corporate cases. For instance, in one significant case, I had to cross-examine a company director regarding shareholder interests. My CS background provided me with deep insights into directorial duties and corporate compliance, enabling me to conduct a thorough and effective examination. In another case, I successfully defended an independent director by demonstrating that they weren’t involved in day-to-day operations, leveraging my understanding of corporate governance structures and directorial responsibilities.

Today, I view both my law degree and CS qualification as equally vital to my career. They complement each other perfectly, providing me with a comprehensive understanding of both legal principles and corporate governance, which has significantly enhanced my effectiveness as a litigator.

After enrolling as an advocate, how did your early career experiences help you navigate the challenges of becoming a prominent legal professional?

After enrolling as an advocate, I made a strategic decision to first gain experience in a corporate legal environment before committing to litigation. This led me to join ESSAR’s legal and company secretarial department, where I simultaneously completed my mandatory 15-month company secretary articles. This dual experience proved invaluable, as it provided me insight into the workings of an in-house legal counsel while fulfilling my professional requirements. My time at ESSAR actually reinforced my original inclination toward litigation, with my senior colleagues strongly encouraging me to pursue this path despite its initial challenges.

Following my stint at ESSAR, I began my litigation career under the mentorship of my father, Mr. Atul Tungare, who has established a respected practice in civil and criminal law at the Mumbai City Civil Courts. Working alongside him, I gained comprehensive exposure to both civil trials and criminal law. This apprenticeship was instrumental in teaching me the nuances of case management – from gathering client instructions and developing litigation strategies to representing clients from trial through appeal. Perhaps most significantly, working directly with clients from day one helped me understand their expectations and taught me an invaluable lesson: sometimes, the best service we can provide isn’t necessarily litigation, but rather counseling clients and helping them find alternative dispute resolution methods they might not have considered.

What factors have motivated you to establish your own practice and what were the initial challenges you faced while establishing Asahi Legal?

My journey as an independent practitioner has been deeply rewarding, particularly because it has allowed me to pursue a diverse range of legal matters without being constrained by conventional fee structures. This flexibility has enabled me to expand my expertise across multiple domains – from criminal and civil litigation to corporate law and cooperative societies.

While I’ve thrived as an independent practitioner for the past decade, the decision to establish Asahi Legal stemmed from a desire to provide my existing clients – including corporate NBFCs, banks, and individuals – with comprehensive, tier-one legal services through a structured firm environment. In fact, the impetus to transition from an individual practice to a law firm came largely from my existing clients, who recognized that a formal firm structure would enhance the professional services they were already receiving.

Looking back at the six months since establishing Asahi Legal, I realize this transition could have been made earlier. However, I’m gratified to see how the firm has evolved exactly as envisioned. With the invaluable support of my team and colleagues, we’re successfully meeting the needs of our growing clientele while maintaining the high standards of service that have always been central to my practice.

You have significant expertise in handling cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Could you discuss one of the most challenging cases you’ve worked on in this field and the strategies your team employs to navigate the complexities of the IBC?

One of my most challenging cases involved representing a Resolution Professional in the early days of the IBC, around 2016-17. The case centered on a resolution plan that had been approved by the Committee of Creditors but included several unusual requests – specifically, relief and concessions from prosecution by various government authorities.

The primary challenge we faced was the relative novelty of the IBC at that time. With minimal precedent to draw upon – there were few reported judgments from either appellate benches or coordinate benches in other cities – we had to craft innovative legal strategies. This scarcity of case law required us to think creatively about how to present our arguments.

Our breakthrough came when we decided to deeply examine the parliamentary debates that preceded the IBC’s implementation. These debates proved crucial in demonstrating Parliament’s true intent behind the legislation. Our key argument was that denying these concessions would effectively revert us to the previous Companies Act regime, where government dues took precedence over creditors’ claims – precisely the situation the IBC was designed to reform.

Initially, we faced considerable skepticism from the bench, as courts were traditionally reluctant to grant such broad concessions. However, we successfully demonstrated how approving these reliefs aligned with the IBC’s core objectives of maximizing asset value and ensuring efficient resolution. We also emphasized the potential precedential value of this decision for similar cases across the country.

Ultimately, the NCLT approved the resolution plan with all requested reliefs and concessions intact. This case was particularly significant for my team, as it later became a valuable reference point for similar matters we handled before the NCLT.

This experience reinforced a crucial lesson in legal strategy: when dealing with novel legislation where precedents are scarce, parliamentary debates can serve as powerful tools to illuminate legislative intent. Sometimes, the most compelling arguments lie not in the letter of the law, but in understanding and articulating its underlying purpose.

Given your experience with the Companies Act, how do you approach corporate disputes and regulatory matters, especially when dealing with large corporate entities? Could you share a case where your legal strategy resulted in a significant outcome for your client?

In my legal practice, I maintain a fundamental principle: every client deserves equal dedication and professional expertise, regardless of whether they’re an individual from a modest background or a listed corporate entity. This approach has been crucial in building trust and delivering consistent results.

My methodology for handling corporate disputes and regulatory matters follows a structured approach. First, I conduct a thorough analysis of each case’s merits and challenges. I believe in absolute transparency with clients from the outset. Before taking on any case, I ensure the client fully understands the potential outcomes, legal precedents, and applicable regulations. This upfront honesty serves two purposes: it allows clients to make informed decisions and enables me to proceed with complete ethical clarity.

Let me share a particularly illustrative case. We handled an appeal for a corporate client where the stakes were significant. What made this case successful wasn’t just the favorable outcome, but our approach to it. Because we had established clear expectations with the client from the beginning, our team could focus entirely on the legal merits without the burden of managing unrealistic expectations. This strategic transparency allowed us to channel our entire energy into developing and executing a robust legal strategy.

I’ve found that this approach – combining thorough preparation, transparent communication, and unwavering professional dedication – consistently leads to optimal results, whether we’re dealing with complex corporate disputes or regulatory challenges. It allows us to maintain both ethical integrity and peak performance throughout the litigation process.

As an advocate with experience in both civil and criminal law, how do you balance representing clients across such different legal domains, and how do you stay updated with developments in each area?

In my experience, civil and criminal law are more complementary than different. While there are distinct procedural aspects to master, having expertise in both areas has actually enhanced my ability to develop comprehensive litigation strategies for my clients. This dual perspective often allows me to identify innovative solutions that might not be apparent when viewing cases through a single lens.

I often hear from law students who believe they must choose between civil and criminal practice. However, I strongly disagree with this perspective. As a litigation lawyer, having a thorough understanding of both areas is invaluable. A narrow focus on just one domain can potentially limit the solutions we can offer our clients, preventing them from achieving the best possible outcomes.

As for staying current with legal developments, the digital age has made this task significantly more manageable. Our firm subscribes to several national legal publications, and I actively encourage our associates to make use of these resources. Staying informed about the latest precedents isn’t just good practice – it’s essential to effective advocacy. Missing a recent ruling relevant to a client’s case could significantly impact the outcome, regardless of how strong the underlying position might be.

With the wealth of legal information now freely available online, there’s really no excuse for not staying current, whether you’re a seasoned practitioner or a newly qualified lawyer. I believe this commitment to continuous learning is fundamental to providing excellent client service and maintaining high professional standards.

Having represented clients at some of the most prestigious forums in the country, what personal values and principles have guided your career, and how do you ensure that these values are reflected in the work done by Asahi Legal?

When I began my litigation practice, my primary motivation wasn’t financial gain but rather the opportunity to gain diverse experience across various legal forums. I deliberately kept my fees minimal, just enough to cover costs, because I was driven by the chance to represent clients in different jurisdictions and forums across the country. I’m deeply grateful to my clients who trusted me with their cases, as these opportunities have been instrumental in building my practice.

This fundamental value – prioritizing experience and growth over immediate financial rewards – is something I actively instill in every associate at Asahi Legal. We emphasize that regardless of a client’s size or the fee structure, each case presents a unique learning opportunity. As litigation lawyers, we believe that the chance to appear before a new forum or handle a novel type of case adds invaluable experience to our professional growth, something far more precious than immediate monetary compensation.

This philosophy continues to guide our firm’s approach today. At Asahi Legal, we remain enthusiastic about taking on unusual or challenging cases, including matters in forums where we haven’t previously appeared. We view such opportunities as chances to expand our expertise while delivering favorable outcomes for our clients. This openness to new challenges, combined with our commitment to excellence, has been crucial in shaping both our firm’s culture and our success in the legal field.

What advice would you give to young law students and aspiring lawyers who wish to excel in the field of law?

Based on my experience, I believe patience is the most crucial attribute for young lawyers starting their careers in litigation. Whether you’re practicing independently or working under a senior lawyer, it typically takes 4-5 years to truly gain mastery over your field. These initial years can be challenging, but it’s essential to embrace this period with optimism because it fundamentally shapes your entire career trajectory.

During this phase, you might notice your peers in corporate law or working as in-house counsel earning significantly higher compensation. However, maintaining faith in your chosen path is crucial. Once you successfully navigate this learning period, litigation becomes an incredibly rewarding career. Unlike more routine legal work, litigation offers the excitement of handling diverse cases daily, challenging you to think creatively and keeping you intellectually stimulated.

Additionally, I strongly advise young litigation lawyers to diversify their case portfolio, even if some cases don’t offer substantial fees initially. Each case, regardless of size, provides valuable courtroom experience and opportunities to develop your advocacy skills. Often, these seemingly modest cases can lead to connections with larger clients and more lucrative opportunities. Therefore, I encourage young lawyers not to dismiss cases solely based on immediate financial returns, provided they cover basic costs.

I firmly believe that by embracing these two principles – maintaining patience during the foundational years and being open to diverse cases – young litigation lawyers can build a successful and fulfilling career in law.

Get in touch with Amit A. Tungare –

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

To Top