Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

Noting the constant interruptions caused by a lawyer during the court proceedings, the Delhi High Court recently issued a show cause notice to the lawyer, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

While expressing displeasure over the conduct of Advocate Ravi Kumar, the bench of Justice Girish Kathapalia said, "The counsel for the petitioner is not permitting me to dictate this order and continues interrupting. As such, the order shall be passed in the chamber."

Justice Girish Kathapalia was dealing with the case of one Shalini Singh (petitioner), represented by Advocate Ravi Kumar, in a plea moved by her against United Insurance Company (UIC) Limited. In the application, Singh sought directions to restrict UIC's General Manager (HR) from exercising control over the documentary evidence repository, appointment, promotion, posting, and transfers, or case files and documents due to alleged malpractice and corruption.

However, during the court proceedings, the constant interruptions caused by Singh's counsel forced the judge to dictate the order in the chamber.

"At the request of counsel for the petitioner, it is made clear that this application is not being dismissed today, but since he continues interrupting, further dictation has to be in the chamber," the court added.

Despite the said clarification, the court noted that Advocate Ravi Kumar continued to interrupt the court proceedings. Therefore, the court emphasized that such conduct, which involves interfering with court proceedings, is equivalent to contempt.

In a similar vein, Justice Kathpalia said, "I feel constrained to contemplate appropriate action. Therefore, the opportunity is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to address on the next date as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. The rest of the order shall be dictated inside the chamber."

Further, on Justice Kathpalia's asking as to why the allegation about the respondents having paid over Rs. 2 crores to counsel opposing the petitioner should not be treated as scandalous and irrelevant.

Instead of responding to the said queries, the court pointed out that the counsel for the petitioner created a scene, which further forced the court to stop dictation and defer the hearing to the Chamber.

"On the above aspects, the counsel for the petitioner is granted the opportunity to address further arguments on January 9, 2025, as already fixed," the court concluded.

Case Title: MRS. SHALINI SINGH V UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS. (CM APPL. 64505/2024 in + W.P.(C) 3514/2019)