In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned order, insofar as it refused to adjourn the matter on the premise that Akshay Srivastava was the lead Counsel and that he was at Chennai on the date when the matter was taken up.{Para 9}
10. Even otherwise, in my considered opinion, before taking an adverse view against the Counsel on the basis of a Facebook post, and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India, the learned IPAB ought, at the very least, to have given an opportunity to the Counsel to explain the circumstances. Postings on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of the location of a person at a particular point of time, at least by a Court. Even if a Court is to take an adverse view in that regard, the Counsel ought to be given an opportunity to explain the position before such a view is taken. This Court is of the concerned opinion that the learned IPAB was needlessly strict in imposing costs and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India in such circumstances.
Neutral Citation Number :2022/DHC/005508
CS(COMM) 310/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C)-IPD 50/2021 & CM APPL. 7338/2021
VINOD KUMAR Vs INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
Dated: 12.12.2022
Print Page