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

With nearly a decade of experience across various areas of law, do you feel that law was always your intended path, or were there specific factors that guided you towards this profession?
Strangely, the practice of law was the last thing I thought of as a child. I was never very studious and never really sat down to think of what I wanted to pursue as a career. My mother, who is a scientist, was insistent that I must obtain a professional qualification. And it was my father, who is a businessman, who first suggested I study law; he’s in the business of real estate and saw potential in the practice of law. In a nutshell, both my parents were of the view that I obtain a professional qualification, and then do whatever I deem fit, provided it was constructive. And I’ve seen that, law or anything else, this emphasis on professional qualification is arguably one of the most important things that a child can be directed towards in the absence of any pre-disposition or pre-existing plan. But after joining law college, and seeing students work as hard as they did with moots, debates, research papers, and internships, I began to lose interest; it seemed like a lot of work. In fact, around the 3rd year in law college, I even toyed with the idea of leaving the law all together with a BSL Degree. I didn’t realise it back then but, sub-consciously, my plan was to join my father’s business. It seemed like the easy way out. I even did an internship of sorts with his firm – he was a task master and I was a complete misfit because of my indiscipline. Once I saw that I’d have to work equally, or maybe even more hard with him, I decided to give law a shot.
In other words, I was a very dull and unambitious student until my 4th year; it was only around this time that I began to consider giving things a shot; I began to read and participate in moots. That changed a lot for me. And the moment I surrendered myself to the law, I couldn’t imagine going back. In hindsight, I can’t see how I’d been doing anything but practicing law. This profession has re-moulded me in ways that were so necessary but impossible anywhere else.
You began your career in the Litigation team at a law firm. What were the key learning experiences during that time that shaped your legal perspective and influenced your career path?
The first key learning was that come what may, the trial courts offer learnings that no other forum can offer in litigation; trial work is trial work. My first year of law practice (at Hariani & Co.) was exclusively restricted to trial courts, or tribunals of first instance. While it got boring at times, it was the most enriching overall experience. The reason for this is simple: Our mind learns a lot by observation, sometimes without us even being aware of it; and there is no better place to see the law actually play out than in the trial courts. That one year set a solid foundation in my mind about what the practice of law was at its very essence; facts first, procedure next, and then, the substantive law.
The second learning was that the more time you spend with a matter (mentally), the more you seem to get it. I have no doubts that –although my foray into arbitration was not to happen until 2 years after– I would not have gotten into this space, had it not been for my time at Hariani & Co., Pune. My time there, also showed me the tremendous potential that lay in establishing a trial practice, contrary to popular beliefs. When it came to civil law, everyone wanted to be in the Higher Courts or in the Big law ecosystem, perhaps, because they haven’t seen the plus sides of a career as a trial lawyer. And a lot of your baselining of what the future might hold, takes place during your first two or three years. So it’s important that your environment during these first few years gives you hope. There was not a single big case in the city that the firm wasn’t involved in. I was lucky that way. Hariani & Co., ingrained a think big mentality of sorts in my mind.
During your time at AZB & Partners, you worked on a significant arbitration case against a Japanese conglomerate. What were some of the unique challenges you faced, and what strategies did you employ to successfully navigate those challenges?
The things I learnt whilst working on that matter were probably my biggest learnings in practice until then. While it did concern a foreign entity, the opponent in the matter was an Indian subsidiary of that foreign entity – so it was a domestic arbitration through and through; that’s for context. What made that case challenging was the sheer volume of the records; the matter revolved around disputes between a contractor and sub-contractor over civil and mechanical work done at India’s largest thermal power plant. Although up to that point, I had worked on cases where the monetary stakes were even higher than those involved in this arbitration, the volume of the records in the previous cases was nowhere close. So the biggest challenge for me was to get a grip on the documents and the facts. I remember my boss repeatedly laying emphasis on the list of dates being as accurate as possible. It was overwhelming and I found myself lost almost every day. So the biggest takeaway from that arbitration was the importance of organizing your brief, getting a grip on facts, and your thoughts. In one sentence, I’ve learnt that the only strategy to focus on in any case, is to simply have a command over the facts. If you do that one thing right, the rest of it somehow seems to fall in place almost automatically. If you’ve done a good job with organizing and presenting the facts, transparently (emphasis added), to a Judge or an Arbitrator, then you have done half the job. If you’ve been honest and precise in your presentation, the decision maker’s work load is considerably reduced. They need not spend as much time ascertaining or weeding out each and every fact; that frees up mental space for them to apply the law accurately. The output will almost always depend on the input.
After working with two prestigious firms, you chose to establish your own practice. What motivated you to take this step, and what were some of the initial challenges you encountered while setting up your practice?
I was always clear that if I practiced law, in the long term, it was going to be on my own; else, I’d give up practicing all together. I couldn’t see myself being a transactional lawyer or sitting in house, or only briefing other counsel. To do it any other way, was not something I could get myself to do willingly. It isn’t like I didn’t try to restrain myself and stay a little longer within the law firm ecosystem. But it was not in my DNA, and I was not doing justice to the jobs at hand; it was either leaving that ecosystem or leaving the law altogether. I decided to leave the former, albeit on an impulse, and initially regretted the decision a lot. But it is, in hindsight, the best thing that I’ve done. Initially after commencing independent practice, fear was the motivation. But I was fortunate that I got good work and opportunities from almost the first week, if not day, of my independence. Plus, I had no responsibilities and my parents were there to support me in every possible way. I could wax lyricals about “struggle” or challenges but there wasn’t any; there was a lot of self-doubt, many long hours, a lot of being alone as opposed to having colleagues, and so on. But that’s just nitpicking; I had work, my clients were fair, my parents were supportive, and I had no responsibilities. So no challenges. I only had to show up, and the rest somehow took care of itself.
Since launching your independent practice in January 2019, you have represented clients in various courts and arbitration tribunals. Could you share one of your most memorable or impactful cases, and what valuable insights did you gain from handling it?
Come to think of it, strangely, it’s not an arbitration matter. I’ve had some extremely memorable experiences: my first argument – before a Small Causes Court; my first arbitration in which I was part of a team that appeared before 3 retired judges of the Supreme Court, against some of the finest arbitration lawyers of the country; my first ever cross examination – against a prominent German automobile manufacturer, an arbitration I won, albeit not as thumpingly as I’d like; representing Rapido against an obstinate State Government; my first brief as an arguing counsel. But the matter that stands out is a case that I did before the National Green Tribunal against an environmental clearance granted to a slum rehabilitation scheme which was being constructed by a prominent developer and the Pune Municipal Corporation. My client had challenged this clearance and other permissions and, incredibly, had lost before every forum including the Supreme Court; that is when he came to me. I spent months on the case and managed to pull out one seemingly small but actually significant violation which had not been agitated before or adjudicated by any court or tribunal. We managed to succeed based on the law laid down in the Forward Foundation. After the matter was disposed off, my opponent became my client. I could think of no better end to that litigation. That will always be special.
You have represented Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited in multiple forums. Could you describe the key complexities of this case and the challenges of representing a transportation company in such matters? How did you approach the legal strategy?
What made this case peculiar was that something new kept happening almost every day. I’m based out of Poona but was practically living in Bombay for almost three whole weeks – afternoons were usually spent in my car at Horniman circle, waiting for the next call while populating the ever expanding list of dates. Before you knew it, you had to file something before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority, and the Bombay High Court – things were on extremely short notice. Plus, there was some FIR or the other being registered against new employees every day. Added to that was the volatility of autorickshaw drivers. I was even threatened once. It was exciting and intimidating at once.
The matter hinged on the Motor Vehicles Law in Maharashtra, the Constitutionality of the State Government’s prohibitive actions, and Roppen’s right to ply in the absence of specific regulations for bike taxis; the complexity was owed to the fact that the grievance that Roppen had, on first blush, was more to do with policy making which is almost exclusively within the domain of the executive. All the same, there was no express embargo on plying of bike taxis. In fact, the central government had recognized the right to use motorcycles as contract carriages, as far back as in the year 2004. But the state government had nothing in place; and this being a concurrent list subject, the State maintained that it had absolute dominion to call the shots. All the same, there was an aggregator’s policy in place in Maharashtra but the Government kept insisting that bike taxis were illegal. It was a mish mash of law, both for and against us.
The strategy was simple: ensure compliance of the aggregator policy, and exhaust all alternative remedies before approaching the High Court and finally mounting a challenge to the constitutionality of the state law. We worked on the issue as a whole for almost a whole year, and in November 2022, even managed to convince the High Court to set aside an order of the RTO Pune, without having gotten into the merits. The matter was primed for us to move with this part of the challenge – the constitutionality, coupled with the fact that the government of Maharashtra had not obtained presidential assent to do away with the central law. But at the last minute, the clients decided to refrain from mounting this challenge on advice of other counsel, who had different ideas and took a different route; Roppen was ordered to shut down on 13 January 2023.. But the state government has finally come up with a policy; that was a relief.
The experience was incredible because I was the lead Advocate for the longest time. Drafting representations, appeals, petitions, overall strategy, understanding the views of the GCs, the stakeholders, and even appearing in a few matters and briefing Senior Counsel in others. It was a lot to take in. A different kind of learning.
As a guest lecturer at several universities, including your alma mater, what do you find most rewarding about teaching? How do you incorporate your practical experiences into your lectures, and how do you foresee the future of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) evolving with the rise of technology in the legal field?
The satisfaction of seeing someone understand a particular point or provision of law based on your expression of it, is the most rewarding aspect of teaching. Added to that, is the fact that if you’re serious about doing a good job as a professor, you need to be thoroughly prepared and really understand the subject deeply. This, in turn helps in expanding your own stock of knowledge, which is key to a good law practice. Teaching that way is a win-win for all concerned. I am of the firm opinion that any practicing / litigating Advocate cannot be at his or her best without being in constant touch with his or her academic or theoretical –some might even say– impractical or idealist side. I make it a point to explain threadbare the details of cases I’ve handled, while explaining a particular issue and I try to correlate the case with the provision we are studying; trying to draw out as many parallels as possible. I’ve found that to be one of the most effective ways of reaching into the minds of the students or recipients. As far as technology in ADR goes, of course, we aren’t at par with many foreign jurisdictions. And even things like virtual hearings and email filings have come into the mainstream in India, only post the pandemic. So while there is certainly a lot going on in that space, I don’t think India is ready yet. A lot of legislative groundwork needs to be laid before we can think of using advanced technology in India’s ADR ecosystem.
You have expressed a strong interest in philosophy, psychology, and history. How do these interests influence your approach to law and contribute to your professional growth? Do you find these subjects shape your views on justice and conflict resolution?
My interests in philosophy and psychology stemmed from my need to find myself answers when I’d hit a rough patch. I was lost and miserable, both, personally and professionally. I’m glad that that happened very early on in my career. I think self-awareness is key for persuasion skills; one can only try to understand others, if they’ve looked within and understood their own self. Plus, it helps you deal with negativity a lot more effectively. I also think cognitive biases and heuristics should be taught in every school; things like the Pygmalion effect, the Confirmation bias, the Sunk Cost fallacy, and so on. These are aspects of everyday life, both in and out of court. And unless we understand the fallacies which are inherent in our thoughts as human beings, we can’t do justice to our jobs as Advocates. It also helps to keep the ego in check. All things equal, I think that an Advocate with a better stock of knowledge on psychology, has an edge over another with lesser of it. Philosophy is more to keep yourself on course when you’re despondent or face a setback, whether in or out of court.
I’ve always been interested in history. And, again, I don’t think there’s a better way to understand the future than by first understanding the past. They say every thought or idea that you might have, has already been thought of by someone else. That, in and of itself, should answer to its significance. And if that isn’t enough, even in our work as Advocates, we’re guided by case law – which is another piece of history. I’ve learnt that history also improves your Court craft in an unexplainable & intangible way. I can’t point out exactly how, but it does.
What advice would you give to young lawyers aiming to specialize in arbitration and build a successful practice like yours? Additionally, what resources or strategies would you recommend to help them stay updated on the latest legal trends?
I think that inherent within the idea of being updated, is the presumption that we know what the law was or has been. I think therefore that staying updated on the law, begins with going back to its very origins. The history of the law is what will help you effectively understand the present. And so, focus on reading law reports (they’re freely available on ESCR now); the further into the past you go, the easier it becomes to keep up with the latest developments.
Coming to building a law practice, I don’t think I’m successful, given where I’d thought of getting by now, when I was a student. But yes, given where I began, I’m satisfied; much more than that actually. This is to say that I don’t think I’m qualified enough to talk about building a successful practice, just yet. What I can offer, however, is advice in the form of a few eternal truths that I’ve come to know, not understand. Know.
1) Your ability to succeed at anything is no small measure, directly proportionate to your ability to stick it out. There’s a reason they say that a rolling stone gathers no moss.
2) The more you read, the luckier you get. Especially the bare text of the law.
3) Procedure and Evidence are the keys to any door when it comes to civil and commercial work; and,
4) You are your biggest resource. Never sell yourself short.
Get in touch with Aman Vijay Dutta –
