Lawyers Expected to Address Court with Deference, Judges also Should Refrain From Showing Needless Sensitivity On Counsel’s Utterances

Case: Sh. Pawan Kumar Kakaria V. Anil Kumar Rai & Anr

Coram: Justice C Hari Shankar

Case No.: CM(M) 1061/2022

Court Observation: “Courts should abjure from entering such remarks or exhibiting needless sensitivity about utterances by Counsel in Court. Often, in the heat of arguments, the language used by Counsel may not be most circumspect. The Court is expected to be alive and sensitive to this fact. A brotherly word of advice, across the Bar, is often all that is required on such occasions.,”

“It cannot be said … that, in expressing “shock and surprise” at the query posed by the learned ADJ, the learned Counsel conformed to the most appropriate standards of legal discourse. The apology tendered at the Bar is, therefore, accepted,”

Previous Posts

‘Rajnigandha Well Known Trademark, Entitled To Higher Degree Of Protection’: Delhi High Court Blocks Sale of Rajni Paan

Section 119 Evidence Act | Madras High Court Lays Down Principles For Examining Witnesses Who Are Unable To Speak

ApplesTree vs ApplePlant: How Delhi High Court Interpreted Synonymy In A Trademark Infringement Suit

Not Open For Court To Suo Motu Question Validity Of Trademark Registration If Not Disputed By Defendant: Delhi High Court

Mere Geographical Presence Of Website And Customers’ Ability To Access It Sufficient For Granting Injunction In Trademark Infringement Cases: Delhi HC

MGNREG Act | Collector Can Transfer Gram Rozgar Sevaks For ‘Administrative Exigencies’: Orissa High Court

No Special Case Made Out For Breaching Ceiling Limit of 50%: Chhattisgarh High Court Strikes Down Caste-Based Reservation In Education & Jobs

Keywords

Lawyers Expected to Address Court