- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
No mask, no hearing Bombay High Court refused to hear a case when it noticed that a lawyer who had come for the physical hearing had removed his mask violating a strict laid down guideline Bombay High Court (HC) has shown the way that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) defined to deal with the Coronavirus threat cannot be taken lightly. Justice Prithviraj K Chavan refused to hear a...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
No mask, no hearing
Bombay High Court refused to hear a case when it noticed that a lawyer who had come for the physical hearing had removed his mask violating a strict laid down guideline
Bombay High Court (HC) has shown the way that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) defined to deal with the Coronavirus threat cannot be taken lightly.
Justice Prithviraj K Chavan refused to hear a case listed for physical hearing before him when he noticed that one of the advocates appearing for the appellants had removed his mask.
Justice Chavan was set to hear an appeal from a testamentary matter in which Advocates Nikhil Wadikar and Nandu Pawar appeared for the appellants. He noticed that Wadikar had removed his mask and refused to hear the matter and removed it from the board even before it was called out.
A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guidelines were finalized and announced by the Bombay HC on 11 January 2021 and issued for physical hearings in which maintaining social distancing and everyone wearing a mask throughout was made compulsory. The guidelines issued was clear that an advocate would have to argue the case while wearing a mask.
"Learned Counsel for the appellant has removed the mask despite guidelines. ...The matter be removed from the board," the order passed by Justice Chavan said.
Justice Chavan referred to the SOP according to which individual courtrooms are expected to observe the social distancing norms by allowing only limited people inside the courtroom.
Justice Chavan's action of refusing to hear and remove the matter from the board is expected to convey the message in no uncertain terms to lawyers and litigants who are allowed in a courtroom in limited numbers that SOP guidelines must be adhered to in order to keep the deadly virus away from courts.