South Indian Bank Ltd Vs National Highways Authority of India (Delhi High Court)
Summary: In connected proceedings concerning enforcement of an arbitral award, the Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on counsel for the decree holder for appearing virtually from a moving car. The Court observed that the convenience of virtual hearings could not compromise court decorum or disturb judicial proceedings. With more than 70 matters to be dealt with in a day, background noise and movement were disruptive. Referring to its Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, the Court noted that advocates should endeavour not to join proceedings from vehicles except in exceptional circumstances and with the Court’s permission.
This requirement was intended to ensure that virtual appearances took place in an environment conducive to the Court’s proper functioning. Finding no exceptional circumstances in the matter, the Court held that counsel’s conduct violated the rules and directed payment of the costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week. Separately, the Court noted that stamp duty on the arbitral award dated 13 November 2024 had been paid on 24 December 2025, beyond one month from execution of the award. It observed that this was not in consonance with its judgment in M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 155/2026. Another counsel for the decree holder submitted that stamp duty along with penalty had already been deposited before the Collector and undertook to deposit proof within one week. The Court recorded that submission and listed the matters for 15 October 2026.
Cases Discussed
- M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 155/2026 (Delhi High Court) — The Court referred to this judgment while observing that payment of stamp duty beyond one month from execution of the arbitral award was not in consonance with it.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Nachiketa Goyal, learned Counsel for the Decree Holder, is appearing from a moving car. 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. 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.
2. Even the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 20251 of this Court provide that an endeavour shall be made by Advocates not to join proceedings from vehicles except in exceptional circumstances and with the permission 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. There is no such exceptional circumstances existing in the present matter and the conduct of the Counsel is in violation of the rules.
3. In view of the aforesaid, a cost of Rs. 1 lakh is imposed upon learned Counsel for the Decree Holder, payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today.
4. Further, it is apparent from the record that the stamp duty on the arbitral award dated 13.11.2024 sought to be enforced was paid on 24.12.2025, which is undoubtedly beyond one month from the date of execution of the said award and not in consonance with the judgment of this Court in M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India2.
5. At this stage, Mr. Manish Dembla, who is also appearing on behalf of the Decree Holder, submits that he has already deposited the stamp duty along with penalty before the Collector and that he shall deposit proof of the same within one week from today.
6. Accordingly, list on 15.10.2026.
Notes:
1 “the rules”
2 OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 155/2026
