In Conversation with Varuni Mohan
Partner, CMS Indus Law
1. You began your legal career in 2014 and have since progressed through leading law firms, including Crestlaw Partners, IndusLaw and HSB Partners, to become a Partner in Dispute Resolution at IndusLaw. What have been the defining milestones and challenges in this journey, and what do you believe helped you establish yourself in the highly demanding field of litigation?
Varuni Mohan:
I am a first-generation lawyer. Nobody at home had ever been inside a courtroom, so when I started in 2014, I was learning from scratch what many people around me seemed to already know: how a matter actually moves, who to ask, and what to do when the registry returned my papers for the third time. I made my share of mistakes in those early years, and I am still learning every day.
Looking back, I don't think there was any one quality that made the difference. What I tried to do was turn up prepared, read the file once more than seemed necessary, and do the routine work carefully, even on matters that nobody else was watching. I have also been lucky that the right people noticed that effort at the right time and that I enjoy the work. There is still nothing quite like the moment late at night when a case finally makes sense, and that enjoyment has made the long days much easier.
I began at Crestlaw Partners, where I spent my first three years. The mentors I found there will remain my mentors for life, and knowing and working with them is a privilege I hold very close to my heart. They trained me the way good teachers train children in their early years at school: patiently, from the basics up, correcting the same mistake as many times as it took until it stopped being a mistake. How to read a file, how to draft a clean paragraph, and how to sit through a full day in court and actually learn something from it. Almost everything I do today rests on what they taught me.
After those three years, I took a year out for my master's and then joined IndusLaw in Bangalore. The work was challenging, and the pace was fast, and I learned a great deal about keeping calm under pressure, though I cannot claim I always managed it. Seeing up close how the founders had built the firm from small beginnings into one of the largest in the country was also a quiet lesson that has stayed with me.
The hardest chapter came when I moved from Bangalore to Chennai and joined HSB Partners. People outside the profession assume a lawyer can practice anywhere. In theory, yes. In practice, it felt like starting over. The Karnataka High Court does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction, while the Madras High Court has a full original side with its own rules, its own masters, its own way of numbering applications, and its own expectations of counsel. Suddenly the procedure I had taken for granted for years was of no use. I had to relearn how a suit is instituted, how applications are moved, how the cause list really works, and what the Registry expects before it will number a matter. I made mistakes that a second-year junior in Chennai would not have made, and that was humbling.
Then there was language. Tamil was not a language I was comfortable in, and so much of court life happens in it: the conversations in the corridor, the clerk who knows when your item will come up, and the client who wants to explain the family history of a property in the language he thinks in. I was a new girl in a new city, in a bar that has long-standing relationships and traditions, and for a while I felt very much on the outside.
What changed it was people. HSB was very different from the firm set-up I was used to, but it was extremely welcoming and kind, and it made a new city feel a little less new. It taught me never to walk into a room unprepared, a rule I still follow before every hearing and every client meeting. It also gave me some of my closest lawyer friends in town. I worked with wonderful colleagues and mentors who took the time to explain things they did not have to explain, who corrected me without embarrassing me, and who trusted me with matters before I had fully earned it. Slowly the city stopped feeling foreign. I picked up enough Tamil to follow and then to engage, and I began to enjoy the very procedures that had once intimidated me. Whatever I have become as a litigator owes a great deal to those years and to those people.
In 2022, I came back to IndusLaw. I am grateful to have a wonderful mentor and a team that supported me through early motherhood and, at the same time, gave me every opportunity to take on serious work. Those two things do not always come together, and I do not take them for granted. Becoming a Partner at a firm that has known me since I was an intern has been the most meaningful moment of my career so far, and I owe it as much to the people around me as to my own effort. I see it less as an arrival and more as a responsibility, particularly towards the young lawyers on my team, from whom I find I am still learning.
2. With extensive experience representing corporations, developers, financial institutions, and individuals before the High Courts, Commercial Courts, DRT, and various tribunals, how do you perceive the evolution of commercial litigation in India? Are businesses becoming more conscious of dispute prevention and risk management, or does litigation still largely remain a reactive approach?
Varuni Mohan:
Commercial litigation in India has changed a great deal in the time I have been practicing. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, created dedicated commercial divisions and courts, introduced stricter timelines for written statements, and brought in case management hearings. The 2018 amendment added Section 12A, which requires pre-institution mediation in suits that do not seek urgent interim relief, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Patil Automation in 2022, that requirement has real teeth. The Mediation Act, 2023, e-filing, virtual and hybrid hearings, and the steady push towards institutional arbitration have all changed what a commercial dispute looks like. Courts today are far less tolerant of the old habit of filing first and thinking later.
On the client side, the picture is mixed. Large corporates and financial institutions have become noticeably more sophisticated. Their in-house teams think about dispute resolution clauses at the drafting stage, they maintain documentation with an eye on a possible claim, and they increasingly ask for an early, honest assessment of a case instead of an aggressive one. Banks in particular have learnt, through the DRT and the IBC, that how you document a loan determines how you recover it.
But I would be lying if I said dispute prevention has become the norm. For most mid-sized businesses, family-run companies, and developers, litigation remains reactive. Contracts are still signed with a dispute resolution clause copied from an old template, sometimes naming a seat nobody has thought about, sometimes with an arbitrator to be appointed by one party in a way that is no longer valid in law. Correspondence is casual until the relationship breaks down, and then everyone wants to rebuild the record in a week. Very often, the first time a lawyer looks at a transaction is when a notice has already been received.
The shift I would like to see is towards treating legal risk the way businesses already treat financial risk: something reviewed periodically and not only when something goes wrong. An hour spent on a well-drafted clause, a clean paper trail, and a sensible escalation mechanism can save years before a court or tribunal. My own practice has moved in that direction. A good part of my work now is advising clients before a dispute crystallises, telling them where they are exposed and, sometimes, telling them not to litigate at all. That conversation is not always welcome, but it is often the most valuable one.
3. You have spearheaded complex domestic arbitrations involving claims exceeding ₹600 crores and represented clients in challenges to arbitral awards involving substantial financial stakes. From your experience, what distinguishes a successful arbitration strategy from an ordinary litigation approach? Additionally, what practical challenges continue to affect the efficiency and credibility of arbitration in India?
Varuni Mohan:
The biggest difference is that arbitration rewards discipline at the start far more than litigation does. In court, a weak pleading can sometimes be rescued by an amendment, an additional affidavit, or the passage of time. In arbitration, the tribunal is deciding on a record you build from the very first day, and the grounds for setting aside an award under Section 34 are deliberately narrow. If something is not pleaded, proved, and argued before the tribunal, you will usually not get a second chance later.
So, in a high-value arbitration, the real work happens early. It begins with understanding the commercial story and not just the legal causes of action, because tribunals are made up of people who want to know what actually happened. It means choosing the right arbitrator and thinking about who will genuinely engage with a technical or financial dispute. It means mapping the documents and witnesses before the statement of claim is filed, getting quantum experts involved early rather than at the end, and drafting pleadings that a tribunal can follow without a guide. In matters where the claims run into hundreds of crores, the case is very often won or lost on quantum and on the credibility of the witnesses, not on a clever legal argument. Cross-examination in arbitration also has to be sharper and shorter than many litigators are used to. A tribunal has limited patience for questions that do not go anywhere.
When I represent parties in challenges to awards, I see the other side of this. The successful challenges are rarely about re-arguing the merits. They are about genuine jurisdictional defects, patent illegality on the face of the award, or a serious denial of a fair hearing. The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Gayatri Balasamy (2025), which recognised a limited power to modify awards, and the 2024 Constitution Bench ruling in the CORE case on unilateral appointment of arbitrators have both made the law clearer, but they have also made it more important to get the process right from the beginning.
As for the challenges, I would point to four. First, India still relies heavily on ad hoc arbitration, which often imports the pace and adjournment culture of court litigation into a process that was meant to be faster. Second, costs and fee structures remain unpredictable, which is especially hard on smaller businesses. Third, despite the timelines in Section 29A, the real delay usually comes after the award, when Section 34 and Section 37 proceedings and enforcement can take years. An award that cannot be enforced quickly does not mean much to a client. Fourth, the arbitrator pool is still narrow, drawn largely from retired judges. Their experience is invaluable, but we need more diversity in background, in expertise and in gender. The draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 proposes useful reforms, including statutory recognition of emergency arbitration and a stronger role for institutions, and I hope it moves forward. The credibility of arbitration in India will depend less on new legislation and more on whether lawyers, arbitrators and courts actually commit to keeping the process lean.
4. Having led insolvency-related practice and represented Resolution Professionals, Liquidators, banks and prospective Resolution Applicants before the NCLT and NCLAT, how do you assess the effectiveness of India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in achieving its objectives? What are the most significant practical challenges concerning CIRP, resolution plans and balancing the interests of different stakeholders?
Varuni Mohan:
I think the IBC has done what it was designed to do in one important respect: it changed behaviour. Before 2016, a defaulting promoter could sit on a company for years, with recovery proceedings dragging on before multiple forums. Today, the possibility of losing control of the company is real, and a large number of defaults are settled before or soon after an insolvency petition is filed. That deterrent effect does not always show up in statistics, but anyone who practises in this area knows how much it has shifted the balance between borrowers and creditors.
The numbers themselves tell a more complicated story. According to IBBI data up to mid-2026, more than 9,000 CIRPs have been admitted, close to 1,500 have ended in approved resolution plans, and over 3,000 have ended in liquidation. Creditors have realised roughly 30% of their admitted claims under approved plans. That figure is about 166% of liquidation value, which shows that resolution is far better than the alternative, but the haircuts remain painful. And the average time to resolution, at well over 600 days, is nearly double the 330-day outer limit the Code contemplates.
From my work with Resolution Professionals, Liquidators, banks and resolution applicants before the NCLT and NCLAT, the practical problems are fairly consistent. Delay at the admission stage is the first, because every month lost before admission is value lost from the company. Then there is non-cooperation from erstwhile management, missing records and assets that are difficult to trace, which leave an RP effectively reconstructing a business from the outside. Avoidance applications for preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transactions often stay pending long after the resolution plan is approved. Finally, there is the steady stream of litigation by every stakeholder who is unhappy with the outcome, which keeps plans in limbo and frightens off serious bidders. The Jet Airways saga, which ended in the Supreme Court directing liquidation in 2024 after an approved plan failed to be implemented, is a reminder of what an unenforced plan costs everyone.
Balancing stakeholders is the hardest part. The Supreme Court in Essar Steel affirmed the primacy of the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, and rightly so. But operational creditors, employees, homebuyers and dissenting creditors often feel the process happens to them rather than with them. In real estate insolvencies especially, the human stakes are enormous, because homebuyers are not sophisticated lenders but families who put their savings into a flat.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 attempts to fix several of these issues. It introduces creditor-initiated insolvency resolution, makes admission mandatory once default is established, provides a framework for group and cross-border insolvency, sets 30-day timelines for key decisions and allows penalties for frivolous proceedings. These are welcome steps, but laws do not resolve companies; Benches do. Unless the NCLT and NCLAT have enough members and support staff, and unless lawyers stop treating every order as an opportunity to appeal, timelines will remain on paper. I remain optimistic about the Code. It is a young law that has already reshaped credit culture in India, and with better capacity it can deliver much more.
5. Litigation is often considered one of the most demanding areas of legal practice, involving long working hours, courtroom pressure, extensive preparation and unpredictable schedules. From your experience, what are the biggest challenges women lawyers continue to face in establishing themselves in litigation, particularly when it comes to courtroom representation, professional credibility, networking and leadership positions? What changes would you like to see within the legal fraternity?
Varuni Mohan:
The numbers are a good place to start, because they are sobering. Women are now more than a third of law students in India, and nearly 37% of candidates who took the most recent All India Bar Examination. Yet, among enrolled advocates in the State Bar Councils that publish gender data, women make up only about 18%. Only around 3.4% of designated senior advocates are women. In the High Courts, women make up just over 14% of judges, and only two of the thirty-four judges of the Supreme Court are women. Somewhere between the classroom and the courtroom, we are losing an enormous amount of talent. That is not only a loss for women. It means the profession is drawing on a much smaller pool of merit than it should.
I see this every year. A fresh batch of bright, ambitious young women join litigation, and within five or six years many of them are gone. They have not lost interest in the law, and they have certainly not lacked ability. Life simply gets the better of them. Marriage, a move to another city, a child, an ageing parent: any one of these is enough to tip the balance in a profession that offers almost no structural support.
I want to be careful here, because I do not think women in litigation are asking for special treatment. What they want is the same chance for their work to be seen and judged on its quality. The challenges arise where that chance is uneven, and they are often subtle rather than dramatic. In the courtroom, a young woman may first have to establish that she is counsel and not the clerk or the client's relative. Clients sometimes ask whether "sir" will be arguing. Juniors are often given the passover and the adjournment while someone else is given the final hearing, so it can take women longer to build the hours on their feet that make a reputation. Assertiveness is not always read the same way: what is persuasive in one lawyer can be called difficult in another. Networking still happens largely in the evenings, which is not easy for someone who has to be home by seven. And in leadership, whether in bar bodies or in firm partnerships, women are still rare. Even basic infrastructure is catching up; the Supreme Court had to issue directions as recently as this year on washrooms and amenities for women lawyers in court complexes.
I should be honest about my own position. I have had immense support at home and at the office, and I have worked with colleagues and mentors who never once made me feel that being a woman was a limitation. In my experience, whenever I was given a real opportunity, the work was allowed to speak for itself, and that is all I ever wanted. But I know that is not everyone's experience. For many women, particularly those without that kind of backing, the same pressures that I could absorb become reasons to quit.
The change I would most like to see is a profession that is truly merit-based. Briefs, arguments, designation and partnership should depend on the quality of a lawyer's work and nothing else. That cuts both ways: no woman should be held back because of her gender, and no woman should want to be carried forward because of it. But merit needs opportunity before it can be seen, so the practical steps matter. Seniors should give juniors, women included, substantive arguments and not just mentions. Designation processes and bar body elections should be transparent and genuinely open to women; the move towards reserving seats for women in State Bar Councils is a good start. Sexual harassment redressal mechanisms should actually function in court complexes and chambers. And men in the profession should see this as a question of fairness and quality, not as a women's problem; mentorship cannot only flow from women to women. For our part, the best answer women can give to any bias is the one the profession respects most: a well-prepared, well-argued case.
6. The demanding nature of litigation can make balancing professional responsibilities and motherhood particularly challenging. What structural or cultural changes do you believe law firms, chambers and the legal system should introduce to create a more supportive environment for working mothers? How can the profession move beyond merely acknowledging work-life balance and actually make it achievable?
Varuni Mohan:
The first thing I would say is that work-life balance is the wrong phrase for litigation. There is no perfect balance. There are only weeks when the scale tips one way and weeks when it tips the other. What a working mother needs is not balance but predictability and trust, and the profession can do much more to offer both.
At the level of the court system, predictability is everything. A mother who knows her matter will be taken up at a fixed time can plan her day. A mother who has to wait in a corridor from 10:30 to 4:30 for an item that may not be reached cannot. Better case management, time-slotted listing and a continued commitment to hybrid hearings would make an enormous difference. The pandemic proved that a well-run virtual hearing does not compromise justice, and it would be a shame to lose that flexibility. Creches within court complexes and lactation rooms that actually exist and actually work should be treated as basic infrastructure, not as favours.
Law firms and chambers need structural changes as well. Paid maternity leave and genuine parental leave for fathers, so that childcare is not assumed to be the mother's job alone. A return-to-work path that does not quietly push a woman off the partnership track because she took a year off. Targets and performance assessments that measure quality of work and client outcomes rather than hours spent visibly in office. And clear, written policies, because informal goodwill disappears the moment a difficult matter comes in.
The cultural change is harder, but more important. We need to stop equating commitment with being physically present at 11 pm. Some of the best work I have done has been at my dining table after my child is asleep. Seniors and partners have to set the tone. If a partner says, "I am leaving at six for my child's school event, call me if needed", it gives everyone else permission to have a life too.
I can say all this with some confidence because I have seen what support looks like. My husband, in particular, deserves a special mention. He is my equal partner in crime in every sense, not someone who "helps out" at home but someone who shares it fully, from the school runs to the sleepless nights, and who has never once made me feel that my career was the one that had to bend. My wider family has stood behind me too, and the firm I work with has been flexible and understanding when I have needed it most. There have been days with a fever at home and a hearing the next morning, and I have been able to manage only because the people around me made it possible. That is exactly my point. My story should not depend on my good fortune. It should be the minimum that every woman in this profession can expect.
7. You pursued an LL.M. in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution from Queen Mary University of London, following which you built a substantial practice in Indian commercial litigation and arbitration. How has your international academic exposure influenced your approach to dispute resolution in India? For young lawyers aspiring to build careers in international arbitration or cross-border commercial disputes, what qualifications, practical experiences and specialised skills would you recommend?
Varuni Mohan:
The LL.M. in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution at Queen Mary University of London was a rewarding year for me personally. It gave me a vocabulary and a framework for dispute resolution that I did not have earlier. I was studying alongside lawyers from many different jurisdictions, and I realised how many of our assumptions in India are just habits rather than necessities.
Three things in particular have stayed with me. The first is the idea that procedure exists to serve efficiency, and that a tribunal and the parties can design a process that suits the dispute. Tools that are routine internationally, such as Redfern schedules for document production, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence, time-limited hearings and written witness statements that actually replace examination-in-chief, are tools I now try to bring into domestic arbitrations wherever the parties are open to it. The second is a comparative mindset. When an Indian court is grappling with an issue such as the scope of judicial review of an award or the validity of an appointment procedure, it often helps to know how London, Singapore or Paris has dealt with it. The third is a sense of perspective about Indian law. We have a sophisticated body of commercial law, and Indian lawyers can hold their own anywhere if they combine that depth with international best practice.
For young lawyers, though, I want to say something clearly: you do not need an LL.M. to be successful. Many of the finest litigators and arbitration lawyers I know never did one. In fact, many tier-one firms tend to see an LL.M., particularly one taken early, as a break year in your practice rather than an added qualification. If you want to be a litigator, work experience with the right lawyers matters far more. Sitting through hearings, drafting under a demanding senior and watching good counsel handle a difficult Bench is where litigators are really made, and no classroom can replace that. If you do choose to do an LL.M., do it because you know exactly what you want from it, ideally after a few years of practice, and not as a substitute for that experience. Above all, do not neglect the basics. You cannot be a good international arbitration lawyer without being a good lawyer first. Learn contract law, evidence and civil procedure thoroughly, and learn to draft cleanly.
Beyond that, for those interested in international arbitration or cross-border disputes, I would recommend the Vis Moot and similar competitions while still in law school, internships with arbitral institutions or international firms, and active participation in young practitioner groups such as Young ICCA, YSIAC and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Write and publish. Even short case notes help you think clearly and get noticed. Develop a working understanding of finance and accounting, because quantum is at the heart of most large disputes. And learn to cross-examine; it is a skill that is underdeveloped in many young lawyers and highly valued by tribunals. Finally, be patient. International practice is built over many years, and the opportunities often come from domestic work done exceptionally well.
8. Having worked across commercial litigation, insolvency, corporate disputes, arbitration, mediation and even matters involving intellectual property and cyber-related disputes, how do you see litigation evolving over the next decade? What three qualities or skills should young lawyers prioritise to build a sustainable and successful litigation practice, and what advice would you give to young women entering the profession?
Varuni Mohan:
I think the next ten years will change litigation more than the last thirty. Technology is the obvious driver. E-filing, virtual hearings, live-streaming and digital case records are already here, and AI tools are changing how research, document review and even first drafts are done. Lawyers who use these tools well will be faster and more accurate. But I do not think technology will replace the core of what we do. A client in a crisis still needs someone who can exercise judgement, and a judge still needs counsel who can be trusted. If anything, as routine work becomes automated, judgement and credibility will become more valuable.
I also expect more specialisation. Insolvency, arbitration, competition, data protection and technology disputes each have their own rules, forums and expert communities. With the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and its rules now notified, data-related disputes and cyber matters will grow significantly. Mediation will become a genuine first step for many commercial disputes, not just a box to be ticked under Section 12A. And clients will expect lawyers to understand their business and not just the law.
If I had to pick three qualities for young litigators, they would be these. First, consistency in preparation. There is no shortcut. The lawyer who knows the file best usually has the advantage, and that comes from doing the work day after day, including on the days you do not feel like it. Second, clarity, in writing and in speech. Judges are overburdened, and the ability to explain a complex dispute simply is the most persuasive skill you can have. Third, integrity. Your reputation with the Bench is built over years and can be lost in a single hearing. Never misstate a fact, never hide a bad document, and never promise a client an outcome you cannot deliver. Alongside these, keep your passion for the work alive. It is what will carry you through the difficult years.
My advice to anyone entering litigation, whoever they are, is fairly simple. Be patient with the early years. The first five years are really an apprenticeship, and the recognition, the good briefs and the money come later. Choose your seniors carefully, because who you learn from matters far more than the name on the door. Say yes to the unglamorous work: the mentions, the compilations, the long days in court waiting for an item to be reached. That is where you learn how the system actually works. When you make a mistake, and you will, own it quickly and honestly, fix it and do not repeat it. And look after your health and your relationships. A long career needs stamina more than speed.
For young women, I would add something more specific. In my experience, the same mistake is often read differently depending on who makes it. When a young man gets a date wrong or fumbles a submission, it is usually put down to inexperience or a bad day, something he will grow out of. When a young woman makes the same mistake, it is still too often taken as a sign that she is not cut out for the work, or that her mind is elsewhere. It is not fair, and it is slowly changing, but it is real. The practical effect is that women are sometimes given less room to fail, and therefore less room to learn.
I have also seen some patterns that I would gently point out. I do not say this of women in general, but these are things I have seen in some very talented young lawyers, and at times in myself. One is waiting to be noticed instead of asking for the argument, the brief or the credit. Another is preparing thoroughly but then hesitating to speak when the moment comes, out of fear of getting it wrong. Some apologise far more than the situation calls for, or quietly take on every administrative task in the team because no one else will. And some decide too early that they will eventually have to leave, long before life actually forces that choice.
So, to young women entering the profession, I would say this. Stay. The early years are the hardest, and there will be days when you are made to feel like you do not belong. Do not let those days make the decision for you. Do not let one mistake, or the way someone reacts to it, define how you see yourself; learn from it and move on, as anyone else would. Ask for the argument and ask for the credit. Let your work make the case for you, and expect to be judged on merit, nothing more and nothing less. If life demands it, take a slower lane for a while, but try not to leave the road altogether, because coming back is harder than staying on. Build your support system deliberately, at home and at work, and do not feel guilty about asking for help. Find mentors, men and women, and when you are able to, become one. And be kind to yourself. You do not need to be perfect at everything at once. You only need to keep showing up.
I came into this profession without a family name to lean on, in a city whose language I did not yet speak, and I am still here. I say that not as a boast but as a reassurance. If you love this work and are willing to keep at it, there is room for you here, and the profession is better for having you in it.
