The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently cautioned an advocate who appeared for a video conference hearing wearing a colour shirt [M/s Pratibha Offset Printing Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh]. .Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa warned the lawyer not to repeat it and to follow the instructions issued by the court to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court.The counsel apologised to the judge who proceeded to record the same in the order. ."Learned counsel for Respondent No.2, who is appearing through video conferencing who wears a color shirt is hereby cautioned not to repeat and follow the instructions issued by the Hon'ble High Court to maintain the dignity and decorum of the High Court," the Court said in its order..The Court was hearing a petition in a case in which the petitioners said that the matter can be reserved for order since it was listed only because a plea was filed for the substitution of a party due to the demise of the original petitioner..The respondents on the other hand objected and said that they would need more time to file their objections to plea for substitution since they have filed an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and were waiting for some information..The Court acceded to the request of the respondent and posted the case for hearing on June 18. .[Read Order]
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently cautioned an advocate who appeared for a video conference hearing wearing a colour shirt [M/s Pratibha Offset Printing Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh]. .Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa warned the lawyer not to repeat it and to follow the instructions issued by the court to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court.The counsel apologised to the judge who proceeded to record the same in the order. ."Learned counsel for Respondent No.2, who is appearing through video conferencing who wears a color shirt is hereby cautioned not to repeat and follow the instructions issued by the Hon'ble High Court to maintain the dignity and decorum of the High Court," the Court said in its order..The Court was hearing a petition in a case in which the petitioners said that the matter can be reserved for order since it was listed only because a plea was filed for the substitution of a party due to the demise of the original petitioner..The respondents on the other hand objected and said that they would need more time to file their objections to plea for substitution since they have filed an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and were waiting for some information..The Court acceded to the request of the respondent and posted the case for hearing on June 18. .[Read Order]