Switching Off Video Amid Ongoing Hearing Against VC Rules: Delhi High Court Bars Advocate From Further Appearance On VC

The Delhi High Court while barring a woman advocate from further appearing before it via video conferencing has held that switching off camera amid ongoing proceedings citing parallel hearing is against the Video Conferencing Rules.

The Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed, "...Ms. Renu Arora, learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, initially appeared through Video Conference and when a query was put up by this Court, her video was switched off and she was on mute. After some time, she again appeared through the Video Conference and submitted that a parallel hearing was going on so she had put this Court on mute and the video was also switched off. This conduct of the learned Counsel is contrary to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 of the High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, Ms. Renu Arora, Advocate is barred to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing henceforth."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Renu Arora.

The Court was dealing with an Application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants, their directors, affiliates, partners, related parties, employees, officers, agents, stockists, distributors, contractors, licensees, dealers and all other acting for and on its behalf from producing, selling, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, importing, exporting and in any other manner, directly or indirectly commercializing or dealing in potato variety as specified by them as ' SRF- . C51 ' and/or any other potato products that infringe the subject matter of Plaintiffs ' registered Plant variety "Colomba".

The Court concluded that a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the Plaintiff for grant of an ad-interim injunction in terms of Paragraph Nos. 19(a) to 19(d).

"...Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ad- interim injunction is not granted...", the Court observed.

The Application was listed for hearing on January 19, 2026.

Cause Title: Mahindra HZPC Private Limited & Ors. v. Shri Ram Farms & Ors.

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate Dr. Amitavo Mitra, Advocate Vivek Ayyagari, Advocate Shruti Jain, Advocate Harsshita Pothiraj

Respondent- Advocate Renu Arora

Click here to read/ download Order: