This interview has been published by Namrata Singh and The SuperLawyer Team
Can you take us through the journey of how you started your legal career, from your early days at Maharishi Dayanand University to becoming a Partner at MV Kini Law Firm? What made you choose law as your career initially?
I come from a small city, and I completed my LLB from a small town as well, though Maharishi Dayanand University has always been considered a reputable institution for law courses. Growing up in a small town presents its own set of challenges. When I pursued my LLB, a career in law was typically seen as either practicing in district courts, securing a government job like ADA, or preparing for the judiciary. But I had bigger dreams — I wanted to move to Delhi and carve a different path for myself.
As a first-generation lawyer, I had to find my own way. The lack of proper resources and guidance, especially compared to those from metro cities, made things difficult for me. My journey began with working in an LPO (Legal Process Outsourcing), where I worked for a brief period. At the time, LPOs were booming.
After a year, I transitioned to the corporate sector, but I quickly realized it wasn’t where my passion lay. I’ve always been drawn to the courts, so I made the decision that for me, law meant “litigation,” and that’s what I truly wanted to pursue.
I eventually applied to my current firm, and after years of hard work and dedication, I am now a Partner here. However, the journey was far from easy — it wasn’t a bed of roses. What kept me going was my commitment to hard work, my dedication, and my unwavering love for the courts.
You’ve appeared before various legal forums, including the Supreme Court, High Court, and Arbitral Tribunals. Could you share the key differences in how cases are presented, argued, and decided across these different courts, and how you adapt your approach based on the forum you’re in?
Definitely, there is a difference in how we present and argue cases before different forums, such as Arbitral Tribunals, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. In my view, the key difference is that with each advancing stage, arguments become more concise.
For instance, when presenting a case before an Arbitral Tribunal, a counsel needs to lay out the case in as much detail as possible. Every relevant factual detail must be presented to the Tribunal without fail. However, when it comes to the High Court, the focus shifts to explaining why an award is flawed in law and how the challenge fits within the legal grounds or criteria.
Finally, when arguing before the Supreme Court, the presentation should be as brief and precise as possible. The synopsis of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) essentially encapsulates the entire case, and it should be drafted in a manner that allows the judge to grasp the case without needing to delve further.
As someone who is proficient in handling mainstream commercial litigation, what are some of the emerging challenges in this field, and how should legal professionals prepare to tackle them?
Nowadays, commercial dealings are centred around arbitration. Almost every contract agreement includes an arbitration clause, with one of the primary objectives being to secure a speedy remedy that avoids the procedural complexities of court proceedings. However, we are gradually drifting away from the advantages of arbitration. Arbitration proceedings are increasingly resembling court processes, as arbitral tribunals adopt similar procedures. In my view, this should not be the case. If arbitration starts functioning like a court, what is the point of having an arbitration clause?
I began handling arbitrations in 2010 and have attended almost hundreds of proceedings since then. The way arbitration was conducted back then was very different from how it is now. It was more party-friendly than compared to the current scenario. As a lawyer, one must continuously learn and be open to accepting changes, as the arbitration process evolves over time.
Your successful representation of NHAI in several landmark cases has set significant legal precedents. Could you share the key factors that contributed to your success in these cases?
For me, the key factor that helped me getting success in the cases is “to be focussed on the issue”. Just be thorough with the facts, updated on the law point and be very relevant in the arguments. I personally don’t believe in the length of arguments; I believe in the merits of arguments. For me “crisp and to the point” is the mantra.
Further, when it comes to arbitration/dispute resolution, law is getting stricter with regard to court’s interference so whenever an award is challenged, it’s very important to just focus on the key points of the case where courts can interfere rather just presenting a long history of case when courts can only deal with question of law. Further, I believe to give a right advice/opinion to my clients and do not encourage habitual litigation.
You’ve led litigation teams for several years. How important do you think mentorship is in the legal profession, and what role has it played in shaping your career? Do you actively mentor young advocates?
Mentorship is very important in every field. It gives a certain kind of confidence and motivation. I remember I was so naïve when I joined this profession. I have also had my own struggles of coming from a small city. So, I always try to make sure that young lawyers joining the firm get my support, mentorship. I believe in Teamwork.
Not every case ends in success. Can you share an experience where the outcome was not in your favor? How did you handle that, and what lessons did you take from it?
I have been representing government clients mostly and have been appearing on behalf of the government in very high-stakes and complex matters. I will not feel shy to say that success rate of government is less in comparison to private parties in commercial matters. So, I also have an experience of not getting the outcome in my favour. But what I have learnt is that our approach should be defend or fight for our client to a maximum level possible. In dispute resolution/Commercial litigation, specially in Arbitrations, outcome is not always in the form of black-and-white. For eg. defending a client and getting 5 out of 8 claims rejected is also a win to an extent. In the same way, getting an award of 100 crores out of the claimed amount of 150 crores, is also a win.
As a leader in your field, what is your vision for the future of arbitration and litigation in India? What reforms or changes do you believe are necessary to improve the efficiency of the legal process?
Without any doubt, future of litigation in India is commercial litigation. After acknowledging the need of developing a strong dispute resolution mechanism in India, amendments of 2015 and 2019 were made in Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Commercial Courts act was introduced. The way Commercial Courts Act has simplified the process of litigation in commercial disputes is commendable.
Arbitration has been a continuously growing filed. However, it comes with its own challenges which require to be addressed practically. First and foremost is regarding the cost involved in the arbitrations as arbitration these days has become a luxury litigation. In my view, 3 issues which require immediate attention are: Cost effectiveness, procedural simplification and impartiality.
As a female partner at a prestigious law firm, what challenges, if any, have you faced in the male-dominated legal industry, and how have you overcome them? What advice would you offer to women aspiring to reach leadership positions in law?
I have been lucky enough to not face any gender-based discrimination at my organisation. However, there is one challenge which I have always felt in this profession is Networking. A male lawyer can easily go out with clients, have a professional dinner (which many a times ends up getting more work) but a female lawyer has to consider many things before doing any such networking. So, even if we don’t face any man-made discrimination but some natural discriminations are there in our society.
My advice to young women lawyers is that just keep going, no matter how many struggles come in your way.
Given your extensive workload and responsibilities, how do you manage to balance your professional life with your personal life? What do you do to recharge and maintain a healthy balance?
Legal profession is a very demanding profession and there is no chance of negotiation. So, to balance it out with my personal life, I try to finish up my work by 7.30 pm and that’s only possible with proper planning. Though our profession is full of surprises when it comes to work but I try to plan everything which makes it possible for me to wrap up major portion of my work by 7.30 pm. Another thing is that I always prefer to reside near office area which helps me save travelling time.
When it comes to health, litigation lawyers unlike corporate lawyers remain physically active by walking entire day in court which is a benefit to us. I am not a gym or fitness enthusiast, but I try to do 30 mins brisk walk in my colony park. Whenever I get some more time, I try to do little bit of running. I have also successfully run Delhi Half Marathon (21 kms) twice.
Apart from physical health, mental health is equally important. Everybody can see your physical illness, but nobody sees your mental illness. And due to “work pressure” and for some “no work”, lawyers are more vulnerable to it. I am a mental health advocate and want to do something more concrete in this area to spread mental awareness.
Get in touch with Neetica Sharma-
