The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on counsel for the decree holders in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award against the National Highways Authority of India, for appearing in a virtual hearing from a moving car, holding that this violates the Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 and disrupts the hearing.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on Advocate Nachiketa Goyal, who appeared for the decree holders in two petitions to enforce an arbitral award against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), after he joined the virtual hearing from a moving car [South Indian Bank Ltd. and Another v. National Highways Authority of India].
Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the order on September 28, 2026 in O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM.) 92/2026 and 93/2026, filed by South Indian Bank Ltd. and Union Bank of India, through South Indian Bank as the lenders’ representative, against NHAI. The order does not record any response from counsel on the costs.
The Court’s observations
The Court recorded that counsel for the decree holders was appearing from a moving car. It said that, while it appreciates the convenience of virtual hearings, that convenience cannot come at the cost of the decorum of the Court or cause disturbance in the conduct of proceedings. It noted that it has to deal with more than 70 matters in a day, and that background noise and movement during a hearing are disruptive.
The video conferencing rules
Justice Shukla pointed out that the Delhi High Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 provide that advocates shall endeavour not to join proceedings from vehicles except in exceptional circumstances and with the permission of the Court. He said the requirement is not merely procedural, and is meant to ensure that even when counsel appear virtually, they do so from an environment conducive to the proper functioning of the Court. The Court found that no exceptional circumstances existed and that counsel’s conduct violated the rules.
It therefore imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on counsel for the decree holders, payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.
The stamp duty issue
The Court also noted from the record that stamp duty on the arbitral award of November 13, 2024, which the decree holders seek to enforce, was paid on December 24, 2025. That was beyond one month from the execution of the award, and, the Court said, not in line with its judgment in M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India.
Advocate Manish Dembla, who also appeared for the decree holders, submitted that he had already deposited the stamp duty along with penalty before the Collector, and that he would file proof of it within one week. The matters were listed on October 15, 2026.
Why it matters
The order shows the Court enforcing the video conferencing rules with a costs order, and treating joining from a moving vehicle without permission as a breach of decorum and not a matter of convenience. It also puts advocates on notice that permission is needed for an exception to the rule, and that noise and movement in a virtual hearing, when a judge has a heavy list, are matters the Court will act on.
The costs order concerns counsel’s conduct at the hearing and has no bearing on the merits of the enforcement petitions against NHAI. The question of the stamp duty on the award is still to be resolved when the matters are heard again.
Case Title: South Indian Bank Ltd. and Another v. National Highways Authority of India [O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM.) 92/2026 and 93/2026]
Bench: Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Nachiketa Goyal, Manish Dembla and Shubham Kaushik appeared for the decree holders, and Advocates Nishant Awana, Rini Badoni and Ekta Kundu appeared for NHAI.