For all tax professionals keenly following the litigation between Vodafone International and the Union of India in the Bombay High Court and then in the Supreme Court, Harish Salve was the face of Vodafone. Even now, when the Government threatens to rob Vodafone of its hard-fought victory through the proposed retrospective amendments, one can sense Harish Salve crouching in the shadows, with bloodshot and impatient eyes, waiting for Parliament to give its nod, so he can attack the Government, go for its jugular and have the amendments declared ultra vires.

So, who or what inspired Harish Salve to attain the heights that he has? The answer, not surprisingly, is Nani Palkhivala. Harish Salve’s grandfather was a very successful criminal lawyer. His father, N. K. P. Salve, was an eminent Chartered Accountant practicing in Nagpur. His mother was also a professional, a doctor. So, Salve was always fascinated by professional qualities & values & how they always fought for principles and issues.

As a young boy, Salve wanted to be an engineer though by the time he was ready for college, he was deeply interested in Chartered Accountancy thanks to his father’s roaring practice. His father, however, had given up accountancy and did only income-tax matters which brought him in close proximity to Nani Palkhivala. Palkhivala used to do a number of matters for N. K. P. Salve and Harish was a part of that environment. Inspired by Palkhivala, Harish Salve discovered that while accountancy was boring, he thoroughly enjoyed income-tax and he decided that if he were to practice income-tax, he might as well do it as a lawyer. The big turning point in Harish Salve’s career came in 1975, when he was still preparing for the CA-Inter exam. On his father’s behest, Harish Salve had prepared a note on some complicated point on the settlement commission’s proceedings which raised some new issues for interpretation. When that note was shown to Nani Palkhivala, he was very impressed and immediately asked Harish Salve “So, when are you joining the profession?”. “The die was cast that day” says Harish Salve with a gentle smile on his face.

This was further cemented a few years later, when Harish Salve, by now working with J. B. Dadachandji & Co, was assigned to assist Nani Palkhivala in the Minerva Mills case. “What an opportunity that was” Harish Salve reminisces.

Nani Palkhivala suggested to Harish Salve that he should join the Chambers of Soli Sorabjee as a junior. After that there was no looking back for Harish Salve. Being a CA and being exposed to commercial matters, Harish Salve had a natural advantage over other lawyers. His own senior, Soli Sorabjee, had a mental block with figures. He was a constitutional lawyer, not at all comfortable with issues like share valuation etc. Harish Salve took full advantage of this situation and conducted a large number of important matters whilst being Soli Sorabjee’s junior.

Harish Salve recollects that the most “telling event’’ was his arguing (with Sorabjee) the famous Bearer Bonds case (R. K. Garg vs. UOI 133 ITR 239) before a five-judge constitution Bench in 1981. “This completely removed all fear from my mind” says Salve and adds that “I am proud that I had a creative hand in the landmark judgment”.

Harish Salve’s move into the super-big league came in November 1999 when he became Solicitor General. He was only 43 years of age at that time and held office till 2002. As law officer for the Union of India, Harish Salve conducted a large number of important matters like the first anti-dumping case which was argued in the Supreme Court and the first case of privatization of PSUs, the Balco case. Harish Salve was also involved in important non-litigation work such as conducting the WTO negotiations, drafting the electricity reforms and setting up legislation for the competition commission, which gave him a larger perspective to legal matters than that which a litigating lawyer has.

Harish Salve also gained from the fact that there were very few lawyers of stature practicing income-tax law in the Supreme Court. He became the first port-of-call for MNCs troubled with income-tax matters and did full justice to the trust and faith reposed in him. He appeared in a number of landmark matters. In UCO Bank vs. CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC), he persuaded the Court that the earlier ruling in State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 was per incuriam. In CIT vs. Podar Cement 226 ITR 625 (SC), he established that an “owner” was not necessarily only a person in whose favour the sale deed is registered. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) was one of his more celebrated cases as were GE India Technology vs. CIT 327 ITR 456 (SC) and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries vs. DIT 288 ITR 408 (SC). Also, who can forget the RIL-RNRL dispute between Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani where Anil Ambani’s hard-won victory before the High Court was torpedoed by Harish Salve.

Its’ no surprise that Harish Salve should have molded himself with Nani Palkhivala as his idol. He paid tribute to Palkhivala by saying “From him I learnt that genius is a lot of hard work. It entails having the capacity to do what people find boring, that is where you hone your attention to detail. Palkhivala taught me to make excellence an end unto itself. He used to say that the measure of how well you’ve argued in court comes not from the decision of the court, but from how you personally feel you’ve performed. He opened up a whole new dimension of the world before me.”

Like Palkhivala, Harish Salve is a staunch believer in the necessity for full research into all case laws. Also, when a case comes up in court, Salve lives and breathes that matter. He gives up all other petitions. “I attend court daily to hear the other side’s arguments. I don’t like to distract myself and prefer to concentrate on the case at hand. You never know when a new idea pops up” said Salve.

Harish Salve made it clear that he only accepted a matter where he was convinced about the merits of the case. “I am a very poor lawyer” he said. “If I am not convinced about a case, I will make a very weak argument in court. Lawyers, like doctors, take the oath that they will represent any case in court, giving everyone a chance for justice. But I am capable of laughing aloud in court if I have to argue for a matter that I think does not hold ground. And I am always aware that as a senior counsel, the court expects that what I say should be worth hearing.”

On the aspect of fees that he charged Vodafone (a topic of interest to all), Harish Salve went on record to say that he did not charge Vodafone the Rs. 1 crore that he was rumored to have charged for each day of hearing but “only a fraction” of that. Sadly, he did not elaborate on what that “fraction” was!

On the personal front, Harish Salve is also inspiring for his outlook on life and his obsession with personal fitness. Harish Salve looks slim and trim and says that he feels “fitter today than he was at 35“. The secret to this is a faithful cardio and weights work-out regime done every morning.

Harish Salve put it very well “At some stage you start believing that you are indispensable to the World. Your body comes second; everything else comes first“. He says that there has to be a change in mindset by your telling your body that you love it the most and give it at least one hour of your time everyday. “At some stage, you must decide what’s important” he says and adds that if the body is healthy, the mind will be sharp and you will be able to accomplish much more in your professional life. “You must cut down on work if you can’t find the time to give to your body” and adds with emphasis that professionals must live a disciplined life in which they sleep early and get up early and do a rigorous work-out.

Harish Salve has a word of advice for all of us fellow professionals. He says that the most important thing that he learnt from Palkhivala is what he (Palkhivala) called “Churchill’s art of persuasion“. “For something to be convincing, it must in the first place be simple“. So, professionals must focus on how they can present complex legal propositions with “clarity and simplicity” so that the judges are able to comprehend and assimilate the arguments that are being made.

Another of Harish Salve’s endearing traits is his modesty especially when it comes to talking about Nani Palkhivala. “Palkhivala was a genius and If on a scale of 1 to 10, I can achieve 3 or 4 of what Palkhivala achieved, I would consider myself hugely successful” Harish Salve said, adding that a picture of Palkhivala would be kept in front of time all through the time he was preparing for the Vodafone matter because Palkhivala is such a great inspirational figure for him.

On failure, Harish Salve was very disarming “I failed my CA exams three times” he said with a wink. “Failure teaches you more in life than success does” and so you should never be afraid of failure. “I have lost a number of important matters in my career” he said with no trace of rancour in his voice.

Harish Salve also says that professionals are all “students of law” and can and are entitled to make mistakes. Mistakes are not important. Dedication and sincerity are the most important attributes that a professional can have, he says.

Harish Salve’s views on his personal wealth are also refreshing. “One thing I’ve learnt is never to be apologetic about success. I have earned it through hard work. I haven’t stood on anybody’s grave to get where I’ve got” he says and adds that one must enjoy the results of the hard work.

So, that’s Harish Salve for you. Simple and modest at heart but a thorough professional as well – the perfect role model.

Nani Palkhivala was a genius and his incredible success as a lawyer has inspired many generations of youngsters. The law reports are full of cases where he has argued complicated points of law and his treatise “The Law of Income-tax” continues to be a best-seller decades after it was first written.

So what was Nani Palkhivala’s recipe for success? Are there any tips or techniques that we can emulate as well in our careers that will help us become better professionals?

Well, the new book “Nani Palkhivala: Courtroom Genius” reveals some incredible secrets of Nani Palhivala’s success formula that can be adopted by people like you and me, with average intellectual abilities.

(i) Thorough study of facts & research into law:

To a casual observer, it appeared as if Nani Palkhivala had a quick glance at the brief, immediately absorbed its contents and was instantly ready to argue the entire matter extempore. This was a myth that Palhivala cultivated and even seasoned advocates were taken in by it.

Iqbal Chagla, eminent senior advocate, recollects how he was briefed in a trust matter with Nani Palkhivala. Chagla had a conference with Palkhivala and pointed out a few authorities on the subject. Palkhivala speed-read the judgements and noted their citations on a chit of paper. 10 days later, as the matter was called out in Court, Palhivala breezed in, pulled out the chit of paper and appeared to remember all the facts and principles laid down in the judgements cited by Chagla.

However, this may not be an entirely correct depiction of how Nani Palkhivala worked. While Palkhivala gave the impression in conference of having just browsed through the papers, the reality was that he was very meticulous in studying the facts and researching the law.

This is best exemplified by Nani Palkhivala’s preparation for the Keshavananda Bharati‘s case, the biggest constitutional matter ever argued in the Supreme Court. Palkhivala formed a team of top-notch Counsel including Soli Sorabjee, Anil Divan etc with clear instructions that they should scrutinize the research material and judgements and then brief Palkhivala in the night and morning. Each morning, Palkhivala would indicate the outline of the submissions that he proposed to make during the day and his team had to ensure that all the books and papers were kept ready.

Palkhivala’s defense in the copyright infringement case that was foisted against him by Sampath Iyengar also reveals careful strategic planning and preparation and an approach that no chances would be taken against the opponent.

(ii) Focus & Concentration on the task at hand:

Nani Palkhivala had the ability to focus and concentrate on the task at hand. He did not believe in multi-tasking. Do one job at a time and do it well was his motto.

When Palkhivala conducted a conference, one could see that his table was cleared of all other papers. Only the brief and authorities required for the conference would be placed before Palkhivala. Phone calls and other distractions were not allowed to disturb the proceedings.

The other aspect of Palkhivala was that he would have read up the brief before the conference. His questions on facts were precise and focused and he would keep a list of authorities that he would ask the instructing CAs to keep ready for the hearing.

(iii) Well-thought out strategy before starting the matter:

Nani Palkhivala would formulate his propositions well in advance of the hearing and compartmentalize the facts. So, when he was arguing the matter, it was very clear to the Judges on what propositions of law Palkhivala was advancing, what were the facts and what were the case laws on the subject.

Palkhivala would, at least in important matters, prepare written submissions or propositions that would act as an aide-de-memoire for the Judges.

(iv) Persuasive style of advocacy:

Nani Palkhivala had a two-fold strategy to convince the Court of the correctness of his propositions. Apart from an interpretation of the statutory provisions, Palkhivala loved to paint a dark picture of what adverse consequences would follow if his interpretation of law as not accepted.

Palkhivala’s style was highly persuasive and his expertise of addressing large numbers of the public in the Budget speeches came in handy because Palkhivala instinctively knew what the listeners wanted to hear and gave it to them with a bit of rhetoric.

(v) Courtesy to the Bench & the Bar:

Palkhivala was very endearing to everyone because, though gifted with incredible intellectual prowess, he was very simple and down to earth. Iqbal Chagla described him as “a man of genius who never lost the virtue of humility; a man of singular simplicity graced with unbounded warmth and kindness; a man of letters as much as of the law“.

Vahanvati also spoke of his experience with Palkhivala. He always treated his clients and juniors with “unfailing courtesy” and when the conference was over, Palkhivala would get up from his chair, open the door, led everybody to the lift and made them feel so special. Vahanvati adds that this was not contrived but “came naturally to him. Humility was part of his psyche and he made people comfortable. A great man is one who is truly humble. He doesn’t need to put on airs. He doesn’t need to throw his weight around“.

(vi) Made complicated issues look simple and boring issues look interesting:

Nani Palkhivala had the incredible ability of making his argument sound so simple and convincing that the Judge would be left spellbound. We could all see this in his budget speeches where his speech was full of quotations, statistics and lots of other information that he would recite from memory and without a single scrap of paper before him.

Palkhivala could also do something which no other person has been able to do: Make a dry and boring subject like the annual Budget look interesting and exciting – even for the common man.

Palhivala’s advocacy was unique in that, to use Vahanvati’s words, “when he addressed the Court, he communicated with the judge. He caught his eye. He caught his attention. And he dominated his brain“.

(vii) Time management:

Nani Palkhivala was a stickler for time discipline. In his mind, he would allot the time required for the various tasks that he had to accomplish and ensure that they were done within that time. This strict adherence to time management made it necessary for Palkhivala to focus and concentrate on the job in hand and his ability to focus and concentrate made it possible for him to adhere to his self-imposed time restrictions.

Palkhivala hated to come to Court early and to have to just sit and wait for his matter to reach. He would walk into the courtroom just a few moments before his matter was expected to be called out. If the preceding matter took longer than expected, Palkhivala would get visibly annoyed and tense though he would not say anything.

If Palkhivala did have to sit in Court, he would busy himself with reading some other brief or case for opinion. He would also settle draft petitions and opinions in Court. After finishing his matter, Palkhivala would rush back to his Chambers for the next conference or to read up for the next matter.

(viii) Single-pointed determination to succeed:

This trait can be seen amongst all successful person whether they be in the field of sports, business or the profession. Such people are highly motivated and self-driven. They set goals for themselves and push themselves hard to achieve that.

Nani Palkhivala was no exception to that rule. From childhood, he was a topper in everything that he did.

(ix) Capacity for hard work:

This was a natural corollary of Nani Palkhivala’s high levels of motivation and strong urge to succeed. Palkhivala welcomed legal problems and complications. He enjoyed solving these problems the way ordinary people enjoyed solving crossword puzzles. Palkhivala did not regard work as ‘work’ or as something that one had to do to earn a living while craving to do something else. For him, work was itself a source of pleasure; a tool of amusement and something that would refresh him.

So, Palkhivala was ready, willing and able at any time of the day (or night) to tackle legal problem. The authors give examples of how Palhivala conducted a conference at 12.30 am with Bansi S. Mehta, an eminent Chartered Accountant, and another at 3.30 am with Ravinder Narain, the well known advocate. The secret of Palkhivala’s unending reservoir of energy was that he never regarded these assignments as ‘work’.

(x) Speed reading & continuous self-improvement:

Palkhivala had mastered the art of speed-reading in which a person rapidly skims a page from top to bottom and assimilates all its important points. His masterful ability to focus and concentrate would have aided this trait of speed-reading.

The other aspect of Nani Palkhivala was that he was very fond of reading ‘self-improvement’ books, especially those by Peter Drucker. It does sound odd that a person of such incredible intellectual ability should be interested in ‘self-improvement’ books but these books were probably just an enjoyable distraction for him.

Vellalapatti Swaminathan Iyer
Hyderabad

Well, life all comes down to a few moments. This is one of them: Bud Fox in Wall Street

It seems incredible that anyone would have the temerity to accuse the great Nani Palkhivala of piracy and copyright infringement especially on a subject such as income-tax law. And what makes this even more astounding is that the person making the allegation is not some deranged and raving lunatic frothing at the mouth but Sampath Iyengar, the highly respected lawyer and author of the best selling treatise “The Law of Income-tax”.

So, what possessed Sampath Iyengar to make this preposterous allegation against Nani Palkhivala?

Well, all these dark secrets including the never-seen-before Plaint filed by Sampath Iyengar in the Madras High Court and the judgement of the Court are revealed for the first time in “Nani Palkhivala: Courtroom Genius”, a book written by legal luminaries Soli Sorabjee and Arvind Datar.

Another surprising aspect is that the judgement of the Madras High Court has not been reported in any of the law journals though it is said to be the first judgement in India on copyright infringement of a commentary on a statute.

Sampath Iyengar, to his credit, knew what a formidable adversary he was up against and prepared his case well. He accused Nani Palhivala of having “cunningly camouflaged” certain passages and extracted copies of those passages from his book and that of “Kanga & Palkhivala’s The Law & Practice of Income Tax” to build up a solid case against Nani Palkivala of copyright infringement. Lets’ see a few examples of what Sampath Iyengar quoted:

Example 1

From Sampath Iyengar’s book:

“Fixed capital is what the owner turns to profit by keeping it in his own possession. Circulating or floating capital is what he makes profit of, by parting with it and letting it change masters”

From Kanga & Palkhivala’s book:

“Fixed capital is what the owner turns to profit by keeping it in his own profession (mistake for possession); circulating capital is what he makes profit of, by parting with it and letting it change masters”

Example 2

From Sampath Iyengar’s book:

“The turning of investment to account was not merely incidental, but was the essential feature of the business, speculation being among the appointed means of the company’s gains”

From Kanga & Palkhivala’s book:

“The turning of investment to account was not merely incidental but was the essential feature of the business, speculation being among the appointed means of the company’s gains”.

Example 3

From Sampath Iyengar’s book:

“The Revenue merely looks at an accomplished fact, viz; of profits having been earned, and assess the same. The assessee might be prosecuted for the crime and yet be charged on the profits.”

From Kanga & Palkhivala’s book:

“The revenue merely looks at an accomplished fact; by bringing the profits to tax, it does not condone or take part in the illegal enterprise. The assessee may be prosecuted for the offence and the same time taxed upon the profits arising out of its commission”.

Sampath Iyengar had chosen his examples well. At first glance, a casual reader would get swayed “Oh My God, did Kanga & Palkhivala really copy from Sampath Iyengar?”

Sampath Iyengar’s tactic had the desired effect on the judge who first heard the matter and he promptly granted an exparte injunction restraining Kanga & Palkhivala from selling more copies of their book.

Nani Palkhivala, not wanting to take any chances against his wily opponent, marshaled heavy artillery to aid him in his battle against Sampath Iyengar. The redoubtable Rustom J. Kolah guarded the flank and drafted the written statement while the front was led by M. C. Setalvad, the then Attorney General and H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law expert. Palkhivala even set up a “War Room” in Chennai where he camped for several weeks when the matter was being heard.

Nani Palkhivala did not want to rely solely on the merits and raised hyper-technical arguments in the written statement such as that the books were not sold in Madras and so the High Court had no jurisdiction and that there was a “great delay” in as much as the books were sold out in Feb 1951 while the suit was filed in Nov 1951. Palkhivala also attacked Sampath Iyengar by stating that the latter’s book was not “original literary work”. Of course, Palkhivala would have known better than anyone else that there was no merit in these technical objections and he abandoned them at the stage of the hearing.

On the merits, Nani Palkhivala put up a spirited defence and pointed out that Jamshedji Kanga “commanded a very large income tax practice” and that he had figured as counsel in innumerable cases. About himself, Palkhivala made it clear that he also commanded a considerable practice and that he had read, not only the head notes, but the entire judgement of each of the cases referred in his book.

Sampath Iyengar began well in his litigation but couldn’t overcome the collective genius of Nani Palkhivala and his legion of battle-hardened counsels. The onslaught was just too much for him to bear and Sampath Iyengar withered away in the cross-examination and became emotional. He gave some of his answers in a huff. Nani Palkhivala, on the other hand, came in for rich praise from the Judge who called him “a competent and alert lawyer, who was thoroughly conversant with the income-tax law”. The book was also complimented as having “systematic arrangement, clear analysis, sound opinions, citations of cases for every point etc”.

Sampath Iyengar’s trump card – the similar sounding passages in the two books – was also torpedoed by Nani Palkhivala. While the Judge admitted that on “first impression”, a few of the passages etc appeared to have been copied by Palkhivala from Iyengar, he noted that these were only about 2 ½ pages out of 1000 pages. Even these, the Judge held, were not satisfactorily proved to have been copied. The Judge pointed out that the passages looked similar because they had come from a common source, namely, reported judgements!

Sampath Iyengar’s other star argument that his book was the “inspiration” for Palhivala’s book and that this constituted “infringement” was mockingly rejected by the Court by likening the claim to that of the idli-sambar vendor who, seeing an illiterate villager enjoying the aroma of the idli-sambar, demanded compensation. The wise King, who had to decide the dispute, ordered that in return for the aroma of the idli-sambar enjoyed by the villager, the vendor was to be given the opportunity to sniff the villager’s money and enjoy its aroma!

And so ended what the judge called “ill-advised litigation”. The only solace for Sampath Iyengar was that the Judge gave him a clean chit by observing that he was “sincere in believing that a portion of his book had been pirated” by Nani Palkivala though he was quite wrong in his thinking.

CA Vellalapatti Swaminathan Iyer
Hyderabad

On account of the delay in penning this piece pursuant to the persistent request of Kahn Narang, I find that it is today almost 34 years to the day when I was enrolled at the bar (7th August to be precise).

When I joined the Chambers of R.J. Kolah, the general advice which all new aspirants received was that the profession was overcrowded. Today my advice to a new entrant is that with the creation of so many Tribunals, Commissions and quasi-judicial authorities, there is unbounded scope for a person with reasonable intelligence, a little more common sense and the capacity to take pains. The great change between now and, say, 30 years ago (and undoubtedly 50 years ago) is the desire in the profession whether of chartered accountancy or of law (and even of medicine) to increase the `turnover’, which is a term that causes so many interpretation problems insofar as S. 44AB and S-80HHC are concerned!

In 1959 the tax work in the High Court was to a far greater extent with solicitors. Today, there are several specialist advocates on record. Insofar as the former, and particularly the bigger firms were concerned, briefs were invariably delivered to the then two leading counsel in the hope that at least one of them would be present. I remember that on one occasion a third brief was delivered to a junior and ultimately after the hearing was over, the solicitors concerned requested the junior to lower his fees because already considerable expenditure had been incurred by the client on two seniors leading him!

Talking of fees, when I joined the profession, a fee of 2 GMs (Rs.30) for a conference of half an hour was the normal and recommended fee for a junior. The other day in clearing some mess I found two unpaid dockets of 2 and 3 GMs and I thought it was good to keep them as mementos rather than having them encashed.

In my first year of the bar, to be precise from 7.8.1959 to 31.3.1960, I earned exactly Rs.30 Even this brief was meant for another Counsel. He was (fortunately) not in the library but I was when the matter suddenly reached hearing. So overjoyed was I at this bonanza that I took a very good friend, who had joined the bar at the same time as I did but was doing much better, to the Regal Cinema and in the process spent Rs.1-5-0 each on two tickets and I don’t remember how much on two ice cream. One thing is sure; a unit of the fee earned at that time gave far more satisfaction than 10,000 earned today!

When I joined the bar, the general advice drilled into one’s ears was that one must be available in the library during court hours for just these chance briefs and thereafter must always be at Chambers or in the library till, at least 7.00 p.m. as it was only then that briefs rejected by the other counsel may come the way of a fresh junior.

An ironical fact of legal (and perhaps all) professional life is that when one is a `fresher’ one is denied briefs which he thinks he deserves, needs and can handle but when one become senior, one is begged to appear in matters which one feels a raw junior could handle with equal aplomb. So also in life when one is learning to swim, very few people come forward to help, but when one reaches the shore there are a horde of admirers. As one rises the grateful affection is for those Chartered Accountants and Solicitors who had briefed well in those days.

One way in which a junior can make his presence felt is by writing in professional journals and participating in seminars or delivering lectures. Fortunately, rather early in my professional carrier, I was given opportunity at the Western India Regional Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Bombay Chartered Accountant’s Society to expose my alleged knowledge. One of the first occasions was when I was asked to participate in a refresher course, wherein lectures were held every week. My father, who was perhaps one of the most regular and avid attendees at such meetings, came home from one of these lecturers and raved about the fact that a young Chartered Accountant who is no longer young but has now scaled the pinnacle of professional success, had delivered a lecture without a jot of notes in which he regaled the audience with copious reference to case law and the exact citations in the ITR (we did not then have the proliferation of so many other tax journals, magazines and reports). I took it as a personal challenge and was most gratified to find that my father (who did not believe in applauding when his sons participated) told me, as we were going home, that my performance matched that of the young Chartered Accountant!

My senior, R.J. Kolah, was one of the most forthright and fearless of advocates I have seen. He believed in the old, and now unfortunately somewhat disregarded rule, that a lawyers contact with the Judge should be confined to the court room and not to any personal conviviality. He hated slipshod work and, therefore, some Chartered Accountants and Lawyers felt that he was `rough’ in his dealings because he was of the firm view that careless preparation of a case was unfair to the client who was paying the fees. For all his forensic ability, he was at heart innocent and quite a few people took undue advantage of his trusting nature and strong sense of loyalty. I have seen him break into tears when told of some personal tragedy having befallen a friend. He did not believe in `recommending’ juniors in his chamber because he felt that this would be unfair to other juniors in the profession, a view which I feel – perhaps in retrospect – is most logical and professionally correct. Such was his humility that when I shifted to Chamber No.5 from Chamber No. 2 in the High Court Annexe and he wanted to discuss something he would come over personally and not `send for me’. When I told him to send over a peon to summon me, he disarmingly relied that it was his work and in any case he was not accepting much professional work and was, therefore, `freer’ than I was!

Sanat P. Mehta, who also now has gone to the great beyond, is another person I remember with great affection and respect. I knew him from the days when he used to teach us the Indian Constitution at the Government Law College. His was invariably the first lecture – starting at the unearthly hour of 7 a.m. Despite this impediment, his lectures were always well attended. He was most easily accessible as a professor and as a Lawyer. He often used to encourage us by telling us of his early, somewhat brief-less years!

When I joined the bar, there were, I think, two Commissioners of Income Tax. Today, I suppose, my fingers and toes are not numerous enough to count them. Unfortunately, this all round proliferation in the administration is matched in a somewhat inverse ratio with efficiency in the Department.

A disturbing aspect as I come to the end of my travel down memory lane is the number of `stories’ one hears about judicial officers. Such `stories’ have always been there and one would be rash not to discount them. However, the ripples now seem to be making wider waves. It is true that the members of the bar often indulge in idle gossip and the bar library is a place where disgruntled lawyers give vent to their feelings. However, the occasions when one feels that an appeal has been won which could not really have been won judicially and vice versa are increasing. I sincerely hope and would like to believe that the old adage that there cannot be smoke without fire is not necessarily and invariably correct.

Reproduced with permission from 25 BCAJ Sept. 1993 page 694 & I.T. Review August Sept. 1996

Nariman started his practice in 1953 as the first junior of Kharshedji Bhabha. He left Bombay in May 1972 to practise at the Supreme Court.

Nariman credits his success to Bhabha. “If I am a good lawyer, it is because I was so moulded, devilling with KH Bhabha.” He said in a memorial address at the Bombay Bar Association. He also credits Bhabha for his sense of humour. “It was not law alone that I leant from Kharshedji but conviviality as well”.

Nariman was Additional Solicitor General of India from May 1972 to 25 June 1975, resigning from that post upon the Declaration of Emergency on 26 June 1975. Fali Nariman was the recipient of the Padma Vibhushan in 2007 and the Padma Bhushan in 1991 for his contribution to jurisprudence and public affairs.

Nariman was a President-appointee member of the Rajya Sabha between 1999 and 2005. He has held several other important positions, details of which can be had here.

The respect that Nariman commands comes from his deep understanding of the law and his fearlessness in expressing it. One example of this is the talk he gave on ‘Substantive and Procedural Reforms in the Supreme Court’. He touched a variety of issues and was openly critical of both the Bench and the Bar. He advised the Bar to “speak less and only after intense preparation”. He advised the judges to “write less after carefully pondering over what is drafted/or dictated — conscious of the mandate of the Constitution that whatever a Judge of the Supreme Court says is regarded by one and all as the law of the land”.

He was also critical of the present selection of High Court and Supreme Court Judges exclusively by a Collegiate of five of the seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court. He called the collegiate a “coterie” and a “closed-club selection”.

He also termed recent contenpt proceedings taken by the Court as “ill-advised”. He said “Judges whether of this Court or of High Courts are not fragile flowers that wilt either in the heat of argument or in the heat of criticism, howsoever trenchant and caustic. The contempt power should not be used to discipline either the lawyer, or the press or the public.”

Nariman’s magic – as is that of the other legends – is that he is an original thinker. Never willing to give up, always optimistic. Always thinking of how a point can make all the difference to the matter. Even at the final stage in the Supreme Court, does not stop thinking of how a new approach or a new angle can make the difference. He can turn a point around on its head and discover an angle missed by others. That quality is what makes the difference.

Apart from that, the old – fashioned hard work. He works on a case thoroughly. Knows all the facts, studies all the case laws and knows how to present the case in the simplest manner. Nariman would probably testify to the correctness of the old saying: Success is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.

To write about a personality like Mr. R. J. Kolah in whose chamber I cut my teeth at the bar is difficult because so many memories and thoughts come flashing back. I first saw Mr. Kolah in 1957. On a visit to Delhi for an all-India debating competition, we decided to visit the Supreme Court which was then in Parliament Building. The Court was hearing a challenge to the constitutional vires of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act. We heard a most persuasive argument from a man of medium height and spare build who was later identified as Mr. Kolah. The judges heard him with rapt attention, a phenomenon I witnessed repeatedly thereafter.

After I passed the examination for “the office of an Advocate of the High Court at Bombay”, as the qualifying examination was then known, I had to decide on the “line” to pursue and the chambers to join. Having been (now, as it happens, very fortunately) turned down by one chamber, my father and I approached Mr. Manek (Botty) Mistry of Messrs. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry who was a great friend of Mr. Kolah. He immediately rang up “Rustom” and I could hear the voice at the other end say that he should ask the “boy” to see him the next day at 9.45. Kolah (at Bar, the juniormost advocate is supposed to refer to the seniormost by his surname) had a place in the chambers of Sir Jamshedji Kanga, which chambers were then located on the ground floor of the High Court on the left hand side as one entered the High Court from the gate near the University. The interview was brief. He accepted me saying how could he turn down a request from “Botty”. He later confided to me that I could have come through my father because he remembered him from his days with Payne and Co. in the late 1920s, when he used to visit the liquidators’ office and my father was there as an auditor. When I recounted this to my father he was surprised that Mr. Kolah still recalled those few meetings. He told me that Kolah used to come from Payne & Co. always wearing a “Parsi cap.” This was but one illustration of Kolah’s phenomenal memory – for cases, facts and faces. Whatever be the size of the brief and howsoever complicated the facts, he never made detailed notes and sometimes just jotted down a few dates. He said that one should not become “notes bound” because one then tends to get tied down to the “plan” and one does not “go” with the judge as one always must. This was in marked contrast to a neighbour, when we were in chamber No. 2 in the High Court, who used to mark his briefs at the first reading in pencil, then in blue, black and red ink. There was a problem when the matter was adjourned for the fourth time!

Kolah was a man of principle and believed that the law and rules must be obeyed in letter and spirit. He did not apply to be enrolled as a Senior Advocate because under the Bar Association rules a Senior Advocate cannot draft pleadings or appear before a Court or an Authority without a junior advocate. He felt (much to the chagrin of juniors in his chamber!) that the latter condition would impose an unnecessary financial burden on the client.

In so far as juniors were concerned, his principle was that he should not “recommend” those in his chamber because this may deprive another advocate in another chamber of a brief as it was possible that the instructing solicitor/chartered accountant may have wanted to brief someone else. Nevertheless, when occasion demanded he would praise the junior in conference for the work he had done in the matter and leave it at that.

There were several companies who wanted him to become a director. He generally turned down these requests as he felt that the same may compromise his independence as a professional. This is a view which is now fully supported by the rules of conduct framed by the Bar Council of India according to which an advocate should not appear in Court or before an Authority for a company client if he is a director of the company as that would create a conflict between his duty to his client and to the Court. This salutary principle is not always observed by professionals. He was very meticulous in his interaction with judges. Though he looked upon them with great respect, he did not believe in socialising with them or hosting personal parties or dinners in their honour. He was averse to advocates identifying themselves with business houses as he felt that this impaired their sense of judgment if legal issues cropped up which also affected that industrial house.

Being personally so principled he always had the interest and welfare of the client uppermost in his mind. It is this which gave the impression that he was brusque in conference. If he felt that the instructing person had done a shoddy job, he would not hesitate to express his displeasure in the conference. Predictably this made him “unpopular” with certain persons who would rather brief somebody who did not express his views so forthrightly. Not only in conferences but even in Court, Kolah never hesitated to purforth the client’s point of view forcefully and without mincing words. He once recounted to me how when he as a junior, an English judge was rather rude with him. Sir Jamshedji Kanga who was in the Court, waiting for his matter to be called out, stood up and put the matter in proper perspective. It was to the credit of the judge that he realised he was wrong in the view he took and perceptibly changed his manner. This is an example which seniors should today follow and judges should also take such a submission in their stride and not get unduly touchy. Those who judge must realise that they can also be judged and that none is so foolish or arrogant as the one who believes himself to be above committing an error.

Some advocates give preference to appearing in the Tribunal over the High Court as the possibility of a disposal of the case on the listed day is more likely and he can perhaps dispose of more than one case in a day. Kolah however, felt that one should always give priority to the High Court as there, one is a part of the formation or making of the law.

Kolah was a stickler for attending the Court punctually. Even if his matter was “low down” he believed in being at the Court well in advance. He felt this to be important particularly in a “new Court” as it gave him the feel of how the judge reacted to different situations. He believed that if he accepted a brief it was his duty to see it through from start to finish. He did not subscribe to the view that it was sufficient if he was present when his turn came as the appellant or the respondent, as was the practice with certain seniors. To a junior this was most comforting. Often a senior in his opening can sway the court to his way of thinking. Thereafter the other side’s Counsel may perform the same trick. If the senior is not there to rejoin and the case is lost, the client is likely to attribute it to the junior’s inability to perform, overlooking that in an opening address, before the other side has had an opportunity to put forward its case, it is comparatively easy to make the judge “swim with you.”

A remarkable aspect of his life was that whilst he was fully conscious of his own dignity and had respect for himself, he was a great believer in propriety and etiquette. If he had a personal matter to be attended to by a brother in the profession, he would go to his office/chamber, even to a comparative junior in the profession, because he felt that he was then in the position of client.

At heart Kolah was “soft.” It was unbelievable that a man of such legal acumen and experience of the world could get fooled or conned so easily. Several people came to him with schemes which he “fell for” but he never complained and took the experience as a learning process. Many people managed to take loans from him which were never returned.

Kolah was a man of wide and varied interests. He tried his hand at alchemy. At one stage he with his caring and charming wife, Lorna, embarked on a venture of perfume making. He was a keen photographer and was an avid photo-painter. He was fond of music — Indian and Western — and in his later days used to spend time in the afternoon listening to music on his walkman. He was passionate about horses and horse racing. His knowledge of the sport was unmatched. He was unsparing in finding time to discharge his duties as a Steward of the Royal Western India Turf Club for over 25 years, for 7 of which he was the Chairman. The institution of the R. J. Kolah cup was a small tribute by a grateful club.

Countless were the number of times he would fly back from a part-heard matter in a High Court or the Supreme Court on a Friday night, attend the races on Sunday and then take back the early morning flight on Monday. In those days it seemed to us in the chamber, to be fantastic for a person just to fly down and back for a race meeting! This, of course, entailed considerable inconvenience because apart from the fact that he had to leave early on Monday morning the departure time from his house would be even earlier because he believed that one should go to the airport in the Indian Airlines bus which then used to leave from the Army and Navy Building. He felt that if he went to the airport by taxi there was the possibility of a breakdown and he may not be able to be there on time. This belief originated from the fact that a friend of his did have such an experience. This also meant that on the few occasions I went out of Bombay with him, I too had to sacrifice an hour’s sleep!

At that time Kolah had a great deal of work out of Bombay and used to travel much. He enjoyed such visits. He was a regular at the Hotel Imperial (in Delhi) which was then managed by the Oberois. His idea of relaxation when he was out of Bombay was to take a walk in the town centre. He enjoyed seeing and meeting people. For him to be with people was more relaxing than being in the hills or sitting by the riverside. Till his marriage (on 5th January, 1959, if I remember correctly) he was not a great “holiday goer” unlike his senior, Sir Jamshedji Kanga who used to go religiously to London during the court’s summer vacation and often beyond. After marriage Kolah also used to take a holiday for 4 weeks primarily to London where he got interested in dog racing apart from his abiding interest in horse racing. Indeed for some time he worked on a project to introduce dog racing at the Brabourne Stadium. One of his prized possessions from his English sojourns was his photograph at Ascot (top hat et al) with Mrs. Kolah in equal finery. It commanded a special place in Chamber No. 2 at the High Court.

It was a wrench for all of us when we had to leave those chambers in May 1987 because the High Court wanted the premises. Kolah was visibly upset when the then Chief Justice communicated his decision in this behalf. But an old warrior always returns home and Kolah spent the last 5 years of his professional life at a room in the office of M/s. Payne & Co., the place from where be began his illustrious law career.

In the 1960s, the Board used to publish in the newspapers a list of the highest tax payers — an item which set many a junior dreaming! Kolah’s name invariably found a place. Yet he did not amass a fortune compared to some of the present day lawyers because despite his high earnings, the tax had taken a considerable portion thereof. Those who cavil at today’s tax rates should remember that during Kolah’s earning days, the income-tax rate touched 92.5% and for a few years it was 97.5%. In addition, there was the wealth tax and for some years the available liquidity was further reduced by having to make first a compulsory deposit and then the annuity deposit.

He had rubbed shoulders professionally with several leading businessmen and industrialists. He nevertheless was fully conscious that those who look up to you professionally are not necessarily personal friends who will abide with you through thick and thin. This fact came home to him brutally when he was defeated in the RWITC elections when the club started getting dominated by businessmen and industrialists. The promised help was not forthcoming and Kolah did not believe in canvassing support by entertainment and other means.

He took success and failure in his stride. Only once did I see him tremendously upset at a decision rendered in a matter he had argued. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs. CIT 41 ITR 135. He was convinced that the assessee’s version of events was true and he was upset that the Supreme Court did not accept the same. He was otherwise not very concerned about the result of the litigation he had participated in. He looked upon success and failure with the same sense of equanimity.

It would be trite to say that Kolah had an extremely busy schedule. After his marriage he relaxed a little and would normally leave the chamber by 6.46 p.m. and arrive at 10.00 a.m. — 45 minutes later than the previous regimen. In the morning his faithful part-time steno (Mr. Gulwadi from Payne & Co.) would be waiting for him. Despite his ‘tight’ schedule if a person who was not to be a paying client wanted an appointment Kolah would go out of his way to accommodate him. As is not unusual with busy Counsel, his own personal affairs often got neglected. We juniors used to joke that it would be interesting to see what would happen if he were to auction the right hand top drawer of his desk. The successful bidder was likely to find several undeposited dividend/interest warrants and cheques!

Today people tend to brand lawyers as “a tax advocate” or “a labour man” or “a trademark specialist” etc. When I joined Kolah’s chambers, Kolah’s practice was mainly in the tax, labour and constitutional fields. However, the first half of Kolah’s sixty years period of practice tax litigation was not so rampant as today, a fact which would be visibly established by a glance at the size of the one-volume-a-year Income-tax Reports till 1952 and thereafter of two volumes a year till 1959. During this period Kolah had a very wide civil practice and was an expert in railway rate matters when the Indian Railways scene was dominated by the Great Indian Peninsular Railway (GIP) and the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway (BB and CI). When Sir Jamshedji Kanga was the Advocate-General, Kolah had taken part in several criminal trials which, at that time were conducted in the Central Court (or the 2nd floor of the High Court).

At a personal level, Kolah had some strange characteristics. He had several friends and visitors to his chamber who were quite unlike him in character and integrity. He still maintained relations with them at a very friendly level without in any way compromising his own integrity. It only goes to show that though you can judge a word by the company it keeps (ejusdem generis) one cannot always judge a human being by those who keep him company. He had his own principles and rules for the chamber. He did not relish juniors holding conferences in the chamber but this was not a great problem as one had the facility of the bar library and the bar room for holding conferences. He was a little hyper about the security of the chamber and, therefore, did not share the chamber keys with others (except with Shantaram, the peon) and often switched off the airconditioning as he left the chamber but this in no way lessened the respect and affection the juniors had for him because they realised here was a man with really a heart of gold and like all human beings had, what the juniors felt were, minor foibles.

It is to the credit of Kolah that he inculcated a spirit of co-operation amongst all the juniors in his chamber. The rivalry which disturbs the peace in some chamber was totally absent. I recall several occasions on which Dilip Dwarkadas, who most unfortunately passed away in 1995 when away in Patna on professional work, very often guided me in my early days on how work should be done to meet Kolah’s requirements.

The Labour Law Journals, the Bombay Law Reporter, the Income-tax Reports and the several Supreme Court reports etc. bear adequate testimony to the large number of important cases he appeared in and how he participated in the shaping of the tax and labour laws of the country. He was the principal advocate in the case of The Associated Cement Companies concerning the payment of bonus before the advent of the Payment of Bonus Act.

One could justifiably claim that Kolah was a pioneer in the field of direct tax laws in India. Pursuant to section 5A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which section was inserted by the 1939 Amendment Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was constituted on 25th January, 1941. Prior to that references to the High Court were made by the Commissioner of Income-tax.

Kolah appeared in several of such references by the Commissioner as would be evident from a perusal of the cases reported from Volume XI of the Income-tax Reports (going back to 1942). The diligent researcher will find that Income-tax Reports from Volume XIII onwards are replete with cases where references were made by the Tribunal in which Kolah had appeared. Kolah was perhaps the only advocate in practice till the late 1980s who has appeared both in the Federal Court (A. H. Wadia vs. CIT 17 ITR 63) and in the Supreme Court of India starting with Executives of the Estate of J. K. Dubash vs. CIT 19 ITR 182 (a judgement pronounced in the very year in which the Supreme Court was established). Two of the several path breaking decisions in which Kolah appeared were E. D. Sasoon & Company Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 27 and Dhun Kapadia vs. CIT 63 ITR 651.

The Government of India Act, 1935 (the predecessor to our constitution) was a monumental piece of legislation and Kolah appeared in leading cases concerning the interpretation of its provisions. He appeared in several litigations under the Abkari Act as also when the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was tested in the celebrated case of the State of Bombay vs. F. N. Balsara AIR 1957 SC 316. He himself was a confirmed feetotaller and non-smoker!

Rome was full of monuments to its illustrious sons. There was, however, none for Cicero. It is said that when a friend of his was asked why this was so, he replied, if you desire to see a monument for Cicero just look around you. If one wants to know why Kolah is indeed called a stalwart of the bar — and not only the tax bar — one could say “just look into the tax reports.” According to the dictionary, “stalwart” means, steady, robust, resolute, unbending, determined, a strong and valiant man. Indeed all these do describe the man Rustom Jehangirji Kolah.

Apart from his professional life, Kolah had a most rewarding personal family relationship. He looked after and guided a large number of relatives, nieces and nephews and was a devoted son. He lived in a joint family in which his wife blended splendidly.

On a personal note, I would like to refer to two incidents which stand out. When I was about 3 years at the Bar and barely earning about Rs. 350 per month (which was of course a great improvement from the Rs. 30 I had notched up in the first year of practice) I was offered a job in a leading industrial house at Rs. 2,000 per month. I thought it was a fantastic offer. When I mentioned it to Kolah his reaction was “gadhero chhe ke?” He followed it up by saying that as a professional person I should not sacrifice my independence for what I thought was monetary gain. Also the most delicious Chinese dinner I ever had was thanks to him when we were invited to the Chinese New Year at the Nanking which was then, fortunately, in full bloom. Mr. Ling was Kolah’s personal friend and somehow my name also got smuggled into the list of invitees.

So much for Kolah the person, now to the mundane. He was born on January 28, 1904. He did his schooling in the Master Tutorial High School. Thereafter, he joined the St. Xavier’s College and, subsequently, the Government Law College. He was called to the Bar in 1926 and passed his Advocate (O.S.) Examination in 1928. He passed away on Sunday, February 2, 1992. If he had been alive and well on that day he would certainly have been at Mahalaxmi to watch the 50th Indian Derby. It was perhaps in the fitness of things that a thoroughbred like him departed this earthly scheme and went to the far beyond as a new winner was being crowned at Mahalaxmi!

Reproduced with permission from the article by Sohrab E. Dastur in the book “A Tribute to the stalwarts of the Tax Bar ” published by AIFTP.

To most practitioners of income-tax law, N. A. Palkhivala is best known as the author of the treatise “The law and practice of income-tax” which he wrote in collaboration with Jamshedji Kanga (“Kanga & Palkhivala”). A crisp commentary on the complicated subject, giving you almost predictively, a judgement on the very point you were looking for.

The treatise was written when Palkhivala was only 30 years old. That gives you an idea as to the genius of the man.

Another introduction to Palkhivala is through the judgements. Almost every important judgement on income-tax where the core principles have been laid has been argued by Nani Palhkivala. But it would be a mistake to think that his contribution was confined to income-tax law. His contribution to the development of constitutional law is also incredible with landmark cases like that of Bank Nationalization, Privy Purses, Golak Nath, Keshavanand Bharathi and Minerva Mills.

Palkhivala’s magic is best understood by looking at him from the perspective of other legends.

Iqbal Chagla says that to call Nani Palkhivala “a tax lawyer” was to miss the essence of this man. “He made the world his stage and he strode upon it like some great Colossus”.

Chagla explains that it is given to few to be considered a legend in their lifetime: Nani was one such. Palkhivala was a legend not only because he rose from the humblest beginnings to become one of the greatest lawyers in the country but most importantly, because he was so uniquely himself: a man of genius who never lost the virtue of humility; a man of singular simplicity graced with unbounded warmth and kindness; a man of letters as much as of the law.

Chagla calls Nani “unquestionably the greatest advocate that I have had the privilege of having heard, of having appeared with and, on occasion, having had the chastening experience of having appeared against.”

“Nani’s greatness as an advocate can be attributed to an incredibly analytical mind, a prodigious memory and a lucidity that made the most complex argument simple to the meanest intelligence. Add to this a felicity of expression that elevated that argument to something that resembled an essay in classical prose and you have Nani Palkhivala.”

Bansi S. Mehta explains two remarkable qualities of Nani Palkhivala. The first quality is of Analysis and assimilation: “One meets many outstanding lawyers, who can analyse a given provision or situation in threadbare detail. Nani, of course, could always do that. But, more importantly, Nani was a rare lawyer, who after a detailed analysis, could assimilate all aspects to fit into a whole picture and the remarkable part of this is that he could do it in just a few minutes. He had the knack of providing his assimilation to the judiciary by resorting to reductio ad absurdum, in which one shows that any other contrary conclusion would be not merely not justified, but plainly laughable”.

Nani’s second quality is of civility. Bansi Mehta says that “Nani’s civility knew no bounds. He made no distinction between seniors and juniors or members of judiciary, who struggled to understand the issue and those who had already grasped the issue. Every time in my early thirties I had gone to his residence for a conference, Nani unfailingly came out of his home and saw me up to the lift. I remember that in 1965 when there was a curfew order following the Indo-Pak war, I had to meet him for something urgent at his residence and since the usual queue of persons waiting to meet him was not there, after we finished our work, he asked me whether he can offer me any soft drink. Not merely that, he got up and fetched the soft drink himself and poured it in glasses. If only one were to compare his civility with the bluff and bluster that we see in some of our public personalities, we can hardly believe that such a person like Nani ever existed.”

Soli Sorabjee adds: “There have been lawyers who matched Palkhivala in erudition and legal knowledge. But for sheer advocacy Palkhivala was unsurpassable. Clarity of thought coupled with precision and elegance of expression, impassioned plea for the cause he espoused in the case, excellent court craft and an extraordinary ability to think on his legs rendered him an irresistible force and made him sui generis.”

Justice Sujata Manohar, who retired as Judge of the Supreme Court and has a number of landmark income-tax judgements to her credit remembers Nani Palkhivala as a great orator, an outstanding scholar and a humanist par excellence,. She says “I had the privilege of hearing Palkhivala in a few tax matters. His clarity, precision and at the same time, eloquent advocacy produced many remarkable arguments in court. His inspired advocacy on constitutional issues in the Supreme Court created history. He persuaded the court to accept the basic structure doctrine and rescued the constitutional values for posterity — a service one cannot afford to forget. His annual lectures on the budget ultimately came to be held on the CCI Lawns which alone could accommodate crowds that came to hear him. He could address a gathering for hours, citing complicated figures without a single note in his hand”.

For more: See My tryst with the legendary N. A. Palkhivala by H. S. Serna, IRS

All quotes are reproduced with permission from the book “A Tribute to the stalwarts of the Tax Bar” published by AIFTP.