
A Delhi-based advocacy practice before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, and statutory tribunals. Seven practice areas. One advocate. No substitutions.
Bail applications, trials, and challenges to seizure, search, and sample procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Defence in economic offences — cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and corporate criminal liability before Sessions Courts and the High Court.
Proceedings before SEBI, appeals to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, and High Court matters arising from SEBI orders on insider trading and market misconduct.
Enforcement Directorate investigations, FEMA adjudication proceedings, compounding applications, and court matters arising from foreign exchange contraventions.
Regulatory enforcement, licensing disputes, prosecution defence, CDSCO proceedings, and appellate matters under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Bail and anticipatory bail, criminal trials at Sessions level and above, revisions, appeals, cyber crime, and defamation before Delhi courts and the Supreme Court.
Proceedings before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, State Commission, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Mr. Mihir B. holds a BA (Hons.) in Philosophy and an LL.B. from the University of Delhi. The philosophical training is not incidental — it informs a practice built on the rigour of argument rather than the volume of briefs.
Enrolled at the Delhi Bar since 2022, the practice has developed a focused specialisation across criminal law, regulatory enforcement, and consumer protection — with every matter conferenced, drafted, and argued by the same advocate.
"The measure of advocacy is not the size of the chambers. It is the precision of the argument."
Every matter begins with a structured conference — not a quick call. Papers are read before the meeting. The conference is for legal analysis, not document review.
Before any matter proceeds, the precise legal question is identified in writing. A case that cannot be stated clearly is not ready to be argued. Many are resolved at this stage.
Pleadings are drafted from principle. Not from precedent alone — from the principle the precedent stands for. Formulaic drafting is not advocacy.
The advocate who conferences with you is the advocate who appears. There are no juniors substituted on the day of hearing. This is the standard. It should be universal.