DRT Ahmedabad Imposes Cost of Rs. 10K Upon Advocate For Appearing In Virtual Hearing From His Car

The Presiding Officer DRT-I Ahmedabad, Vinay Goel on Tuesday (03rd November) imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 upon an Advocate Vishal Gori who attended the virtual hearing while sitting inside his Car.The Order issued by the Presiding Officer DRT-I Ahmedabad, Vinay Goel states,"The Counsel for the applicant is appearing before this tribunal while sitting in a Car. So, I feel judicious to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000 upon Mr. Gori for attending the virtual hearing from his Car"The Court placed reliance upon the Judgment of Gujarat High Court in Misc. Application NO. 13094 of 2020 in Mansukhbhai Polabhai Dhaduk v.State of Gujarat, wherein it was stated,"In this view of the matter and looking to such irresponsible conduct of the advocate Mr. J. V. Ajmera, the Registrar Judicial is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings and shall submit a report within a period of 10 (ten) days to this Court. After the appropriate report is prepared by the Registry, the same shall be forwarded to the Bar Council of Gujarat. The Bar Council of Gujarat and the Bar Association of High Court shall inform the advocates to maintain a dignified decorum while conducting the matters through video conferencing. They shall be informed/instructed that the proceedings conducted through video conferencing shall be either from their respective residences or any office space, barring any vehicle or any open ground. While attending the proceedings from their respective residences / offices, they shall also maintain appropriate sitting posture while addressing the Court"[NOTE: In this matter (Mansukhbhai Polabhai Dhaduk), the Lawyer was found smoking during the course of Court proceedings via video conferencing and therefore, the Gujarat High Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 upon him.After he submitted the said amount, he had tendered an unconditional apology before the court. The Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia had accepted the advocate's apology "with no hard feelings or malice".]After imposition of cost, the Presiding Officer, DRT-I Ahmedabad adjourned the case for one hour, "so that Mr. Gori may appear before this tribunal in terms of the mandate of Gujarat High Court".It may be noted that the Presiding Officer, DRT-I Ahmedabad has directed that the Cost is to be deposited with the National Defence Fund.The Counsel for the applicant undertook to deposit cost within two days with National Defence Fund. The Matter was thereafter, adjourned to 06.11.2020.Inter Alia, there have been incidents where Advocates appear for a virtual court in inappropriate dresses.The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (23rd September), while taking up a Criminal Misc. Application noticed that applicant-accused No. 1, Ajit Kubhabhai Gohil, who was present before the Court through video conferencing, was spitting openly.Deprecating such conduct of the accused, the Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia had said,"This Court is not inclined to take up the matter today looking to the conduct of the applicant-accused No. 1."Further, the Court directed the applicant-accused No. 1 to deposit a cost of Rs. 500/- before the Registry of this High Court on or before the next date of hearing, failing which the matter shall not be taken up for hearing.Recently, the Karnataka High Court slammed an advocate who was participating in the video conference proceedings while sitting inside a car."Though due to extraordinary reasons, we are forced to hear matters through video conferencing hearing. We hope and trust members of the bar will follow the minimum decorum.", a division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi saidIn the month of June, the Supreme Court had accepted the apology of an advocate who had made an appearance before the Court, whilst lying on the bed dressed in a T-shirt, and emphasised on the need to maintain minimum court etiquette during court video hearings.Rajasthan High Court once adjourned a Bail plea on account of inappropriately dressed counsel in a "baniyan" (undervest) during the Video conference hearing.Recently, the Orissa High Court condemned the practice of lawyers arguing cases through VC from inside vehicles, gardens & while eating etc.Furthermore, Calcutta High Court had initiated suo motu contempt action against an advocate-on-record for posting on 'LinkedIn' a screenshot of the virtual court hearing of the day when a favourable interim order was passed by the Single Judge while calling for affidavits.It was observed by the Calcutta High Court that taking a screenshot of the virtual court proceedings is akin to clicking a photograph of an actual court proceeding. However, the contempt proceedings were later dropped with a warning to the lawyer not to repeat such conduct in future.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]

DRT Ahmedabad Imposes Cost of Rs. 10K Upon Advocate For Appearing In Virtual Hearing From His Car

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags