Barrister & Co.

Most disputes are settled by what was written down before anyone thought there would be one.

Barrister & Co. is a firm of advocates practising from chambers on Armenian Street, George Town, four minutes on foot from the Madras High Court. It has done so since 1971. Its work is the drafting that keeps clients out of court and the litigation, arbitration and appeals that follow when drafting was not enough.1

See practice areasWrite to chambers
Contents
  1. ¶ 1The firm1.1–1.4
  2. ¶ 2Practice areas2.1–2.7
  3. ¶ 3Counsel3.1–3.10
  4. ¶ 4Judgments4.1–4.9
  5. ¶ 5One matter2019–24
  6. ¶ 6Chambers6.1–6.3
  7. Notes1–6

The firm was founded in 1971 by T. S. Krishnamurthi, who had read for the Bar at Gray’s Inn and come home to practise at Madras. The name he gave it was a small joke at his own expense, since India has no barristers, and nobody since has had the heart to change it.

Ten advocates practise from chambers today: one Senior Advocate, five partners, a senior associate and three associates. Work is taken on by a partner, who remains responsible for it until it ends, and is done by the smallest team that can do it properly.

The firm appears mainly before the Madras High Court and the courts and tribunals sitting in Chennai, and travels to the Madurai Bench, the district courts of Tamil Nadu and the Supreme Court when a matter requires it. It advises in Tamil and English and drafts in English.

Practice areas

Seven areas, each set out in full at ¶ 2.1 to 2.7 on the practice page with the kind of matter the firm takes and the partner who leads it.

Commercial disputesCommercial Division, Madras High CourtK. R. Venkataraman, see ¶ 3.1
ArbitrationArbitral tribunals; ss. 9 and 34 in the High CourtMeenakshi Sundaram, see ¶ 3.2
Real estate and propertyCity Civil Court and the Original SidePriya Chandrasekaran, see ¶ 3.3
Family and successionTestamentary jurisdiction; Family Court, ChennaiLakshmi Narayanan, see ¶ 3.5
Intellectual propertyCommercial Division; Trade Marks RegistryArjun Balasubramanian, see ¶ 3.4
TaxIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal; writ jurisdictionS. Mohammed Faizal, see ¶ 3.6
Writs and public lawWrit jurisdiction under article 226K. R. Venkataraman, see ¶ 3.1

¶ 3  Counsel, by year of enrolment

Ten advocates. Thirty-eight years between the first call and the last.2

  1. 1984K. R. VenkataramanSenior Advocate, 2009
  2. 1996Meenakshi SundaramPartner
  3. 1998Lakshmi NarayananPartner
  4. 2001Priya ChandrasekaranPartner
  5. 2003S. Mohammed FaizalPartner
  6. 2005Arjun BalasubramanianPartner
  7. 2012Divya RamanathanSenior Associate
  8. 2017Vignesh KumaraswamyAssociate
  9. 2019Anitha JosephAssociate
  10. 2022Hariharan IyerAssociate
Certified true copy
Madras High Court · O.S.
Reg. 4118 of 2024

¶ 4  Nine reported decisions

Matters argued by the firm that a law report has since printed, 2017 to 2024, in the order the reports carry them. Two were lost at first instance.3

  1. 4.1
    Kaveri Solar Power Ltd. v. Sundaram Infra EPC (P) Ltd.
    2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3118
    Madras High Court, Original Side, 2024
    Petition under s. 34 dismissed; award of ₹71.3 crore upheld
  2. 4.2
    Coimbatore Pumps & Castings Ltd. v. Anand Hydraulics
    (2021) 7 SCC 214
    Supreme Court of India, 2021
    Appeal dismissed; a court under s. 34 does not sit in appeal on the evidence
  3. 4.3
    Ref. under s. 34(3): Muthiah Chettiar v. Salem Steels (P) Ltd.
    (2019) 4 CTC 512
    Madras High Court, Full Bench, 2019
    Reference answered; limitation runs from receipt of the signed copy
  4. 4.4
    Meridian Auto Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
    (2022) 196 ITD 441 (Chen.)
    Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, 2022
    Transfer-pricing adjustment of ₹27.4 crore deleted
  5. 4.5
    Amirtham Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner (ST)
    2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5904
    Madras High Court, 2023
    GST demand for the pre-migration period quashed
  6. 4.6
    Kanaka Durga Jewellers v. Sri Kanaka Jewellery Mart
    (2020) 84 PTC 219 (Mad)
    Madras High Court, Commercial Division, 2020
    Interim injunction confirmed; deceptive similarity in a Tamil word mark
  7. 4.7
    Sundararajan v. Special Tahsildar (LA), Sriperumbudur
    (2019) 6 MLJ 88
    Madras High Court, 2019
    Compensation enhanced to ₹41.6 lakh an acre with statutory interest
  8. 4.8
    Vedavalli Ammal v. R. Rajagopalan
    (2018) 5 CTC 771
    Madras High Court, Original Side (Testamentary), 2018
    Probate granted; suspicious circumstances not made out
  9. 4.9
    Nachiappan v. State of Tamil Nadu
    (2017) 3 MLJ 402
    Madras High Court, 2017
    Cancellation of tender set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration
— 4 —

¶ 5  One matter, in the order it happened4

Kaveri Solar Power Ltd. v. Sundaram Infra EPC (P) Ltd.

Arbitration under clause 41 of an EPC contract for a 60 MW plant at Tuticorin. Chennai seat, three arbitrators.

Claimed
₹118.4 crore
Awarded
₹71.3 crore
Recovered
₹94.7 crore
Sittings
19
Elapsed
5 years, 6 months
  1. 09.01.2019

    Notice of dispute

    Served under clause 41.2 for delay, disruption and eleven unpaid running account bills. Claim stated at ₹118.4 crore.

  2. 22.02.2019

    Reply

    Liability denied in full. A counter-claim for liquidated damages foreshadowed but not quantified.

  3. 14.03.2019

    Application under s. 11

    Each side had nominated an arbitrator and neither would agree on the third. The High Court was asked to appoint.

    The clause gave thirty days to agree. Nobody has ever agreed in thirty days.

  4. 27.06.2019

    Tribunal constituted

    A retired judge of the Madras High Court appointed as presiding arbitrator. Seat at Chennai; proceedings under the 1996 Act.

    The seat decides which court supervises. Chennai was written into clause 42. Where it is not, that is the first thing fought over.

  5. 30.08.2019

    Statement of claim

    Filed with 1,340 pages of running account bills, site instructions, hindrance registers and daily progress reports.

  6. 11.11.2019

    Defence and counter-claim

    Counter-claim quantified at ₹36.2 crore for liquidated damages and cost of rectification.

  7. 20.03.2020

    Sittings suspended

    Hearings adjourned sine die. The tribunal resumed by video from October, sitting on Saturdays.

  8. 04.02.2021

    Section 9 application

    Two performance bank guarantees of ₹14.8 crore were called. An application under s. 9 was moved in the High Court that morning and an interim order restraining encashment made the same afternoon.

    A s. 9 order runs alongside the arbitration. It is the one part of an arbitration a court will still decide in a morning.

  9. 08.09.2022

    Evidence closed

    Six witnesses over nineteen sittings. Cross-examination of the employer's delay expert ran four days and turned on a single revised programme dated 11.06.2018.

  10. 12.12.2022

    Award reserved

    Written submissions of 214 pages and a joint chronology filed by consent.

  11. 30.05.2023

    Award

    ₹71.3 crore with interest at 9 per cent from 01.04.2018 and costs. Counter-claim dismissed in its entirety.

  12. 28.08.2023

    Petition under s. 34

    The employer challenged the award on patent illegality and on the delay expert's evidence being disregarded.

  13. 19.04.2024

    Challenge dismissed

    Reported at 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3118. The court held that the reappraisal asked for was an appeal by another name.

    See ¶ 4.1. Reported judgments are listed there in the order the reports carry them.

  14. 11.07.2024

    Satisfaction of the decree

    ₹94.7 crore received with interest. File closed and papers returned to the client.

Chambers

No. 14, Armenian Street, George Town, Chennai 600 001.5 Telephone +91 44 2522 0417. Open Monday to Saturday, 10.00 to 18.00, except court holidays.

To instruct the firm, write to chambers@barristerandco.in with a paragraph describing the matter and the court, if any, in which it stands. A partner replies within two working days to say whether the firm can act and, if it can, sends a letter of engagement setting out the fee.6

Conferences are held at chambers between 10.00 and 13.00 on days the partner concerned is not in court, and are fixed by letter or telephone. Papers may be sent ahead by post or, for anything under fifty pages, by e-mail.

Write to chambers
  1. Rule 36, Section IV, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules restrains advocates from advertising or soliciting work. This site is published under the proviso to that rule and is limited to the firm's name, address, areas of practice and the particulars of its advocates.
  2. Every advocate named at ¶ 3 is enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The year given is the year of enrolment; the designation of Senior Advocate is conferred by the High Court and its year is given separately.
  3. The judgments at ¶ 4 are reported decisions in matters in which the firm appeared for one of the parties. They are public documents and are named here as they are named in the reports. Matters that were lost are listed with the rest; a citator that prints only wins is not a citator.
  4. The history at ¶ 5 is set out with the client's written consent and is taken from the record. Sums are as recorded in the award and the decree. Six of the sittings were held by video between March 2020 and February 2021.
  5. Chambers are at No. 14, Armenian Street, George Town. The High Court's gate on N.S.C. Bose Road is about four minutes on foot; the Broadway bus terminus and the Chennai Beach suburban station are both within ten.
  6. Fees are settled by a letter of engagement before any work begins, on a per-appearance or per-matter basis. The firm does not publish a scale, and the first conference carries no charge if the firm decides it cannot act.