Sanjay graduated from the University of Warwick in 1992, and was called to the Malaysian Bar in 1995. His primary practice areas are construction and energy related disputes. With the career spanning 30 years he has significant experience and expertise in this area of the law. He regularly appears in the Malaysian Courts and in both domestic and international arbitrations. Over the last 30 years, he has been involved in more than 100 arbitrations and court related matters dealing primarily in construction and energy related disputes.
Sanjay has been recognised in Chambers and Partners and various other ranking publications as one of the leading construction lawyers in Malaysia. Apart from his construction law practice, Sanjay also has significant and wide-ranging experience in commercial and civil disputes.
He is particularly interested in the technical areas arising from construction and energy related disputes. In recent time, he has been specifically engaged to cross-examine expert witnesses in court and in arbitration. He has also been involved in several landmark decisions in relation to construction and energy related disputes. In Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd and another appeal  1 MLJ 174, he successfully argued that the earlier decisions which ruled that the Construction Industry Payment Adjudication Act 2012 had retrospective application was incorrect and that CIPAA only had prospective application.
In Exceljade Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd  MLJU 1202, Sanjay successful resisted an application to set aside an arbitration award. This case addressed the issue of the test on which an appeal pursuant to Section 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005 can be pursued. In Kejuruteraan Bintai Kindenko Sdn Bhd v Serdang Baru Properties Sdn Bhd  MLJU 528 that there was a successful challenge of an arbitration award pursuant to Section 42 of the Arbitration Act. The successful challenge resulted in the increase of the arbitration award from RM 2 million to RM 42 million.
Sanjay was part of the team which introduce the concept of unconscionable conduct as a basis to obtained an injunction to restrain payment of monies, guaranteed by a performance bond. In Kejuruteraan Bintai Kindenko Sdn Bhd v Nam Fatt Construction Sdn Bhd  7 CLJ 442 the Court of Appeal accepted unconscionable conduct as a ground for granting an injunction in relation to a demand on a performance bond. Subsequently, in Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Hundred Vision Construction Sdn Bhd  1 LNS 1290. Sanjay successfully persuaded the High Court to grant an injunction on the basis that the demand on the performance bond was unconscionable.
In addition to his construction and energy disputes practice. Sanjay also has a very active commercial practice and he has acted in numerous insurance, land, shareholder, and banking related disputes.