Krishnendra has 2 years of experience in Content and Copywriting. He realised the value of persuasive writing while working with LawSikho. Writing a few marketing emails taught him that right wordings create the right impact. Reading The Boron Letters by advertising legend Gary Halbert inspired him to keep learning about the craft of writing.
He does not restrict himself to legal content writing alone. He has written content for clients in the SaaS Industry and Personal development Industry.
He believes in writing for multi niches to enhance his creativity and train his writing muscle.
On 25th August, the top Court had insisted that the lawyer in question could have informed the Bench about waiting for the senior advocate instead of refusing to speak during the virtual hearing. It had also cautioned advocates from taking advantage of a non-physical hearing setup.
However, the Advocate filed a statement on oath clarifying that he did not engage any senior lawyer on the date of hearing. Earlier, some reports had also suggested that the lawyer was unaware and could not respond in time due to confusion.
SC deems it to expunge its adverse remarks against the lawyer
The three-Judge Bench led by Justice Fali Nariman deemed it fit to expunge its adverse remarks against the lawyer after receiving his clarification regarding the virtual hearing that day. The Court made it clear that while the order stands on merit, the following remarks against the advocate stand expunged.
“Despite the fact that the mike was on and despite the fact that he was told by the court at least three times that he should open his mouth, he purposely did not do so, because he was waiting for a Senior Advocate. He should have come upfront with the court and informed the court that he was waiting for the Senior Advocate instead of indulging in tactics of this kind. We strongly deprecate tactics of this kind. We do not want advocates to take advantage of a non-physical hearing system when it is working on both sides”
In its order dated 25/08/2020, Supreme Court had strongly expressed its displeasure when the lawyer did not speak up in time during the virtual hearing. The said hearing was scheduled regarding a special leave petition in the matter of M/S Dilip Buildcon v. M/S Topworth Infra Pvt Ltd.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors' and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house