Delhi HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Advocate For Appearing From Moving Car During Virtual Hearing

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a counsel who appeared in a virtual hearing from a moving car, holding that the practice violated the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 and that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify it.

Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the order on 28.09.2026 while hearing two connected enforcement petitions, OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 92/2026 and 93/2026, filed by South Indian Bank Ltd. and Union Bank of India Ltd., acting through South Indian Bank Ltd. as the lenders' representative, against the National Highways Authority of India.

The Court noted that the counsel for the decree holder was appearing from a moving car. While appreciating the convenience offered by virtual hearings, it observed that "such convenience cannot come at the cost of the decorum of the Court" or cause disturbance in judicial proceedings. The Court pointed out that it deals with more than 70 matters in a day, and that background noise and movement during a hearing are disruptive to its functioning.

Referring to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 of the High Court, the Bench noted that they require Advocates to endeavour not to join proceedings from vehicles, except in exceptional circumstances and with the permission of the Court. It held that the requirement is not merely procedural, and is meant to ensure that even when Counsel appear virtually, they do so from an environment conducive to the proper functioning of the Court. As no exceptional circumstances existed in the matter, the Court found the conduct of the Counsel to be in violation of the rules.

Accordingly, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the Counsel for the decree holder, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.

The Court also took note of a defect in the record concerning stamp duty. It observed that the stamp duty on the arbitral award dated 13.11.2024, which the decree holders seek to enforce, was paid on 24.12.2025. This was undoubtedly beyond one month from the date of execution of the award, and not in consonance with the Court's judgment in M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India.

At this stage, Mr. Manish Dembla, also appearing for the decree holders, submitted that he had already deposited the stamp duty along with penalty before the Collector, and that he would file proof of the same within one week. The matter has been listed for 15.10.2026.

Appearances:

For the Decree Holders: Mr. Nachiketa Goyal, Mr. Manish Dembla and Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Advocates.

For the Judgment Debtor: Mr. Nishant Awana, Ms. Rini Badoni and Ms. Ekta Kundu, Advocates.

Case Title: South Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Highways Authority of India, OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 92/2026 and connected matter