The Delhi High Court on January 30 expressed concern over the lack of decorum in virtual hearings and urged the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to sensitise lawyers on proper conduct..The Court took note of the situation after an advocate sought to represent appellants in a case while standing in a park with a mobile phone.A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that while videoconferencing is encouraged to ease the burden on lawyers appearing in multiple courts across Delhi, they must maintain proper court etiquette.Despite repeated reminders in the daily cause list, many lawyers fail to follow protocol, the Court added."Quite often, on account of connectivity issues at the end of counsel appearing through videoconferencing the counsel remains inaudible. Often, the video is not switched on. The hybrid courts also are courts only. Even in the daily cause list of this Court, specific directions to maintain decorum while appearing through videoconferencing are circulated everyday. But to no avail.".During the dictation of the order, the advocate in question turned off his video, prompting the Court to refuse to mark his appearance in the case. However, the Court refrained from dismissing the appeal to avoid penalising the litigant for their lawyer’s actions."...Although that can call for dismissal of the appeal in default, but doing so would cause harm to the litigant who is not at fault. As such, I have examined the record.".The present case involved a dispute over a ₹5 lakh loan. The appellants admitted receiving the money via cheque but claimed it was repayment for an earlier cash loan given to the respondent. The Court, however, found no reliable evidence of the alleged cash transaction and questioned why a cash loan would be repaid by cheque."Prima facie, there is no reliable evidence of the alleged cash loan given by the appellants to the respondent. One also fails to understand as to why a cash loan would be paid back through cheque."The respondent’s counsel accepted notice, and the case was listed for the next hearing on July 22. However, the Court clarified that there was no stay on the operation of the judgment..Additionally, the Registry was directed to circulate relevant portions of the order to the Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations, urging them to sensitise lawyers about proper conduct in hybrid court proceedings.Advocate Shivam Goel appeared for respondent..[Read Order]
The Delhi High Court on January 30 expressed concern over the lack of decorum in virtual hearings and urged the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to sensitise lawyers on proper conduct..The Court took note of the situation after an advocate sought to represent appellants in a case while standing in a park with a mobile phone.A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that while videoconferencing is encouraged to ease the burden on lawyers appearing in multiple courts across Delhi, they must maintain proper court etiquette.Despite repeated reminders in the daily cause list, many lawyers fail to follow protocol, the Court added."Quite often, on account of connectivity issues at the end of counsel appearing through videoconferencing the counsel remains inaudible. Often, the video is not switched on. The hybrid courts also are courts only. Even in the daily cause list of this Court, specific directions to maintain decorum while appearing through videoconferencing are circulated everyday. But to no avail.".During the dictation of the order, the advocate in question turned off his video, prompting the Court to refuse to mark his appearance in the case. However, the Court refrained from dismissing the appeal to avoid penalising the litigant for their lawyer’s actions."...Although that can call for dismissal of the appeal in default, but doing so would cause harm to the litigant who is not at fault. As such, I have examined the record.".The present case involved a dispute over a ₹5 lakh loan. The appellants admitted receiving the money via cheque but claimed it was repayment for an earlier cash loan given to the respondent. The Court, however, found no reliable evidence of the alleged cash transaction and questioned why a cash loan would be repaid by cheque."Prima facie, there is no reliable evidence of the alleged cash loan given by the appellants to the respondent. One also fails to understand as to why a cash loan would be paid back through cheque."The respondent’s counsel accepted notice, and the case was listed for the next hearing on July 22. However, the Court clarified that there was no stay on the operation of the judgment..Additionally, the Registry was directed to circulate relevant portions of the order to the Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations, urging them to sensitise lawyers about proper conduct in hybrid court proceedings.Advocate Shivam Goel appeared for respondent..[Read Order]
