The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a lawyer who appeared in virtual proceedings from a moving car, holding that such conduct violated the applicable video-conferencing rules and affected the decorum of the Court. Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while dealing with two connected arbitral award enforcement petitions, found that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the counsel’s appearance from a vehicle.
The Court was hearing enforcement proceedings instituted by South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd, through South Indian Bank Ltd in its capacity as lenders’ representative, against the National Highways Authority of India.
Counsel Joined Hearing From Moving Car
During the hearing, the Court recorded that advocate Nachiketa Goyal, appearing for the decree holder, was participating in the proceedings from a moving car.
Taking exception to the manner of appearance, the Court stressed that virtual hearings provide convenience to advocates but that such flexibility carries corresponding responsibilities.
The Court observed:
“While this Court appreciates the convenience offered by virtual hearings, such convenience cannot come at the cost of the decorum of the Court or cause disturbance in the conduct of judicial proceedings.”
It further noted that when the Court is required to deal with more than 70 matters in a day, background noise and movement during hearings can interfere with the smooth conduct of proceedings.
“When this Court has to deal with more than 70 matters in a day, background noise and movement during the hearing are disruptive for this Court to proceed.”
Video Conferencing Rules Discourage Joining From Vehicles
The Court referred to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 applicable to the Delhi High Court.
It noted that the Rules require advocates to make an endeavour not to join proceedings from vehicles unless exceptional circumstances exist and permission of the Court has been obtained.
Justice Shukla said the requirement was not merely procedural. It was intended to ensure that lawyers appearing virtually participate from surroundings conducive to the proper functioning of the Court.
“The requirement is not merely procedural and to ensure that even when Counsel appear virtually, they do so from an environment conducive to the proper functioning of this Court.”
The Court found that no exceptional circumstances existed in the present case and held that the counsel’s conduct was in violation of the Rules.
Accordingly, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the counsel for the decree holder and directed that the amount be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.
Court Also Flags Delay In Payment Of Stamp Duty
Apart from the issue concerning the virtual appearance, the High Court examined the stamp duty paid on the arbitral award dated November 13, 2024, which was sought to be enforced in the proceedings.
The Court recorded that the stamp duty had been paid on December 24, 2025, more than one month after execution of the award.
It observed that the payment was not in consonance with the Delhi High Court’s judgment in M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India.
At that stage, advocate Manish Dembla, also appearing for the decree holder, submitted that the stamp duty along with penalty had already been deposited before the Collector. He undertook to place proof of the payment before the Court within one week.
The Court accordingly directed that the matters be listed again on October 15, 2026.
Case Title: South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd Through South Indian Bank Ltd v. National Highways Authority of India
Case No.: OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 92/2026 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 93/2026
Bench: Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Date: September 28, 2026
