In a speech dated January 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln said: “Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.” These words sum up Mr Fali Nariman, the doyen of the Bar. For me, the journey commenced after enrolment as an advocate, on joining M/s Kanga & Co. One day, I learned that Mr Nariman had called up the senior-most partner. An ordinance was issued by the Government of India titled ‘Textile Undertakings Taking Over of Management Ordinance 1983’. Eighteen textile mills in Mumbai were proposed to be nationalised and pending that, their managements were taken over by this ordinance.

Mr Nariman told the senior partner that he would like to challenge its legality and validity. In his view, this was a direct interference by the State in the autonomy and independence of the management of these private mills. Immediately, one of the mills approached the firm to file a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. All mills joined and thousands of typed pages forwarded to the solicitor’s office were photocopied day in and out. The entire staff was mobilised in finalising the writ petitions.

Mr Nariman appeared and with his persuasive skills convinced a division bench that the respondents’ argument that the Act proposes to achieve a broader social objective has no merit. Mr Nariman’s arguments enabled the Bench to hold that the Act does not give effect to Article 39(a) to (c) of the Constitution of India and absent such specific words, it violates Article 14, 19 (1)(g) and 300A thereof. The Act was therefore struck down.

Decision reversed by SC later

This Decision was reversed by the Supreme Court much later. Mr Nariman’s total involvement was a unique experience. His insistence on placing every relevant factual detail and caselaw was a lesson for the team. His oral arguments were a treat for any upcoming lawyer. So thorough was his preparation that he anticipated queries from the court and the opponent’s response. I was lucky to be introduced to Mr Nariman so early in my career. Later, I got another opportunity to work with him. One day a trader walked in with an assistant from the advocate’s office. Dressed in dhoti-kurta, he spoke in Marathi. I was astonished to learn that Mr Nariman fully understood his grievance and agreed to appear for him.

Differences and disputes between partners

This man narrated the facts about how he and his brother were partners in a firm in Panvel. This firm had been issued a licence under the then Gold Control Act. That licence was to come to an end. Differences and disputes arose between the partners. His brother was so influential that he engaged an eminent trial court lawyer, filed a suit, without impleading him. The suit for injunction simplicitor impleaded only the Government of India and the authorities under the Gold Control Act. The aim was to restrain the competent authority from renewing the licence or considering any application in respect thereof