The Delhi High Court recently remarked that counsel cannot simply seek an adjournment for reasons which have no basis, after making the Bench do its homework..A Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon concluded its order in a writ petition preferred by a CISF employee on a rather humorous note..Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Rit Arora, urged the Court to adjourn the matter as a similar, connected matter was scheduled for listing on another date. .Arora also stated that another counsel had been engaged to argue the matter and he would also connect on that day. .While the Advocate who filed the petition had chosen not to appear before the Court, Arora informed the Court that he was an associate. On being asked to contact said lawyer, Arora attempted to reach him through, but the calls were not picked up. .Given the situation, the Court stated, ."The pleadings in this petition are voluminous, running into two volumes and took considerable time to read and digest. Counsel for the petitioner, after making the bench to do its homework, cannot on mere asking seek adjournment and that too for reasons which have no basis."Delhi High Court.The Court thereafter asked Arora to argue. However, he claimed that he was unaware of the matter. .The Court thus adjourned the matter to another date and cautioned the counsel for the petitioner to not repeat this behaviour in the future..Before concluding, the Court further suggested in its order,."We have also suggested to Mr. Rit Arora Advocate to consider adding a ‘W’ to his name, to change it to Mr. Writ Arora."Delhi High Court.Read the Order:
The Delhi High Court recently remarked that counsel cannot simply seek an adjournment for reasons which have no basis, after making the Bench do its homework..A Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon concluded its order in a writ petition preferred by a CISF employee on a rather humorous note..Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Rit Arora, urged the Court to adjourn the matter as a similar, connected matter was scheduled for listing on another date. .Arora also stated that another counsel had been engaged to argue the matter and he would also connect on that day. .While the Advocate who filed the petition had chosen not to appear before the Court, Arora informed the Court that he was an associate. On being asked to contact said lawyer, Arora attempted to reach him through, but the calls were not picked up. .Given the situation, the Court stated, ."The pleadings in this petition are voluminous, running into two volumes and took considerable time to read and digest. Counsel for the petitioner, after making the bench to do its homework, cannot on mere asking seek adjournment and that too for reasons which have no basis."Delhi High Court.The Court thereafter asked Arora to argue. However, he claimed that he was unaware of the matter. .The Court thus adjourned the matter to another date and cautioned the counsel for the petitioner to not repeat this behaviour in the future..Before concluding, the Court further suggested in its order,."We have also suggested to Mr. Rit Arora Advocate to consider adding a ‘W’ to his name, to change it to Mr. Writ Arora."Delhi High Court.Read the Order:
