ashoksancheti.in

Mr. Ashok Sancheti

NOTE ON THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SOLICITOR DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN UNITED KINGDOM AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN INDIA AND JUDGEMNT OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NOTE ON THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SOLICITOR DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN UNITED KINGDOM

I have been opposing entry of the foreign Lawyer intending to practice in India now for more than a decade. As a Solicitor practicing in London and holding Indian citizenship, this was considered most unusual by the Law Society and to the British Government, who were pushing for the opening of Indian legal services sector to English Firm of Solicitors and English barrister to be able to come and practice or appear in the Courts in India.
My position was well recorded in the Law Society as well as Indian High Commission of India in London. I had spoken at different meetings on the same subject. Such meetings had taken place in Law Society as well as in Indian High Commission at London and elsewhere. At each of such meetings, I have opposed entry of foreign lawyer being given any right to practice in India until and unless equal reciprocal and unrestricted rights were provided to Indian lawyers to practice in United Kingdom.
Some English Law firms started operating surreptitiously in India. Many set up legal process out sourcing firms, some entered into artificial or good friend’s relationship to use each other’s offices for the purpose of evading, avoiding and trying to bye pass the requirement of Indian law. In fact it was Indian law firms facilitating the foreign firms for financial gain. This process was continuing for some time.
London Court of International Arbitration set up an office and centre in India. I was opposed to it and at my request Mr C. S. Paul Advocate, members of Association of Indian lawyers, filed a suit in Delhi High Court. The objective was to force London Court of International Arbitration to close down in India. Several legal luminaries and retired judges were supporting the London Court of International Arbitration in India. They had self interest eyeing on the possible future appointments as arbitrators.
Public Interest Litigation was filed by one Mr. Balaji in Madras High Court seeking restraint/closure on such activities by the foreign law firms in India. Balaji had filed Public Interest Litigation as member of the Association of Indian Lawyers.
The entire litigation in Delhi Court and Madras High Court was funded and directed by Mr. Surendra Sancheti, President of the Association of Indian Lawyers. The Association of Indian Lawyers operates out of a table space provided to them by M/.s. I.C.Sancheti & Co., Advocates of 12, Old Post Office Street, 2^ndFloor, Kolkata – 700 001. The family name “Sancheti” immediately drew attention and was connected to me.
On 22^ndFebruary, 2012, Hon’ble High Court at Chennai passed an Order prohibiting the operation of foreign law firms in India. Within two weeks thereof, Solicitors Regulation Authority, which is the part of the Law Society intervened and closed the law firm Morgan Walker Solicitors in London which was headed by Mr. Ashok Sancheti.
This was a counter blast to the decision of an Indian Court. I was now an enemy of lawyers and legal fraternity in England.
Since foreign law firms were prohibited from operating in India, particularly English Law firm, law practice of Mr. Ashok Sancheti was closed on ostensibly for the reason of dishonesty.
Solicitors Regulation Authority thereafter issued proceedings in the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal and without providing papers or giving fair hearing and/or giving any opportunity to defend, passed an Order for dishonesty for misusing the funds of the client, and therefore directed that practice ought to have been closed. This was to justify and provide a seal of approval to an act which was undertaken by Solicitors Regulation Authority and Law Society in 2012 immediately after Madras High Court Order. The features to consider are that the complaint was on an affidavit filed by a Queens’ Counsel in England, who refused to be cross examined. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused permission to cross examine him. The only witnesses were two other solicitors who gave hearsay evidence. Such evidence would be forthwith rejected by any impartial tribunal. The relevant files were seized by the regulator who refused to provide copies or access inspite of written application for disclosure. The Application for disclosure was ignored by the chairman of the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal, who was a solicitor also an office bearer in the Solicitor Regulation Authority. The Tribunal constituted was not independent which made the finding against me.
There is no truth in the allegation of dishonesty. There is one particular case wherein the money lying with the firm was set off against the outstanding invoices and such set off against the outstanding invoices cannot be termed as dishonesty. It is immaterial whether the client provided consent or not to such set off.
The second matter relates to certain deposit made to Reserve Bank of India. These monies belonged to an Indian National resident in Kolkata. Payments made to Government of India cannot be by any stretch of imagination be dishonesty. There were good reasons to pay to Government of India. The Indian National died declaring during his life time to bequeath all his assets to charity. Payments were made to the Government of India because against the Indian National who was the beneficial owner of the money, having had publicly declared his intention to give away all his wealth to charity, and died leaving no heirs. The brother and sister of the deceased planned to misappropriate the money. It was declared by Morgan Walker Solicitors that if the brother or sisters of the deceased are the rightful owners of the money, then they can make application and seek the money from the Reserve Bank of India which is an organ of Government of India.
In nutshell the allegations made against Mr. Ashok Sancheti are false, motivated and findings made are exparte by the self same people, who appointed themselves as members of the Tribunal called Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal. It is a case where Prosecutors and Judges are one and the same group of persons, who with the pre-determined plan and objective worked out this strategy of intervention, prosecution, closure and thereafter to make formal finding to support their actions.
It is a farce and fraud played by the Law Society, Solicitors Regulation Authority and Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal and other British authorities who were affected in their designs to exploit Indian legal market.

Post script

On 13^th March 2018, the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.7875-7879 of 2015 has finally upheld that the foreign lawyers and foreign law firms cannot practice or operate in India. London Court of International Arbitration gave assurance to close down in India to the Supreme Court of India to avoid facing an Order.