Counsel Requests Adjournment When Judge Is About To Dismiss Matter, Allahabad HC Imposes 50K Cost, Later Stays It

Update: 2021-07-01 14:09 GMT
story

In an interesting turn of events, the Allahabad High Court yesterday imposed 50K cost in a matter wherein the Counsel requested for adjournment when the Judge was about to dismiss the matter.However, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, later on, stayed the order as to cost 'for the time being' when the Counsel promised that he would argue on the next date of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

In an interesting turn of events, the Allahabad High Court yesterday imposed 50K cost in a matter wherein the Counsel requested for adjournment when the Judge was about to dismiss the matter.

However, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, later on, stayed the order as to cost 'for the time being' when the Counsel promised that he would argue on the next date of hearing. 

The Court's order in this regard read thus:

"After I started dictating the order, when I have conveyed to learned counsel for applicants that I am not convinced and the case is liable to be dismissed, he has requested that I want to adjourn the matter. Subject to cost of Rs.50,000/-, as the valuable time of the Court is lost, list on 19th July, 2021 before the appropriate Court."

The order as to the cost has been stayed as the Counsel promised to argue the matter on July 19/

Recently, the Allahabad High Court had declined to hear an advocate appearing in a matter as he was riding a scooter while appearing before the Court through Video Conferencing mode.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, asked the counsel to be careful in the future and advised him to not repeat the act in future.

The Orissa High Court in February this year imposed Rs. 500 fine on an advocate who was not wearing a Neck Band while arguing before the Court in virtual mode.

While imposing the penalty, the Bench of Justice S. K. Panigrahi observed,
"The profession is solemn in nature and its profundity is complemented by its attire. Being an Advocate, he is expected to appear before the Court in a dignified manner with proper dress, even if it is a virtual mode."
Tags:    

Similar News