The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a counsel who appeared in a virtual hearing from a moving car, ruling that the convenience of online proceedings cannot come at the expense of courtroom decorum or disrupt the conduct of judicial business. The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla in two connected enforcement petitions involving South Indian Bank Ltd, Union Bank of India Ltd, and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

What the Court Observed

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Shukla flagged that advocate Nachiketa Goyal, appearing for the decree holders, was joining the proceedings from a moving vehicle. The Bench made its displeasure explicit in the order itself.

'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,' the High Court stated. It added: '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.'

The Rule That Was Violated

The Bench referred to the court's own Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, which stipulate that advocates should endeavour not to join proceedings from vehicles except in exceptional circumstances and only with the court's prior permission. Justice Shukla noted that the requirement 'is not merely procedural' but is designed to ensure that even virtual appearances occur from an environment conducive to proper judicial functioning.

The court found that no exceptional circumstances existed in this case and held that the counsel's conduct was 'in violation of the rules.' The ₹1 lakh cost was ordered to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week of the order.

Stamp Duty Issue Also Flagged

Separately, the Bench noted an irregularity concerning the arbitral award dated 13 November 2024 that the petitioners sought to enforce. Stamp duty on the award was paid on 24 December 2025 — reportedly beyond the one-month window mandated from the date of execution of the award — and was, according to the court, not in consonance with an earlier High Court judgment on the subject.

Advocate Manish Dembla, also appearing for the decree holders, submitted that the stamp duty along with the applicable penalty had already been deposited before the Collector, and undertook to place proof of payment on record within one week. The Delhi High Court directed that the proof be filed accordingly and scheduled the matters for further hearing on 15 October.

Why This Order Matters

The ruling signals that Indian courts are drawing a firm line on the boundaries of virtual hearing etiquette as online proceedings become routine post-pandemic. While technology has expanded access to justice, this case underscores that procedural discipline remains non-negotiable. Notably, the Delhi High Court had proactively codified conduct norms through its 2025 Video Conferencing Rules — making this penalty one of the first high-profile applications of those rules. Legal observers say the order is likely to serve as a deterrent across courts that have adopted hybrid hearing models.