One particular counsel began his argument before a Division Bench of one of the High Courts by saying:

"My Lords, this is an appeal from the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice X", and then paused.

Before he could say another sentence, the Presiding Judge (who obviously had no love lost for the brother Judge X, and whose orders he would always find fault with) leaned over and asked "Ah yes, and what are your other grounds of challenge in appeal?"

During my initial days in practice, while I was waiting for my matter to be taken up by a Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at a Trial Court in Delhi, a litigant who evidently was disappointed by the order being passed in her matter, repeatedly told the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate that such an order cannot be passed and screamed 'I want Justice!', 'I want Justice!'.

However, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate kept his cool and told the lady that she can challenge his order but shouting will not make any difference, but unmoved, the litigant kept on shouting the same words 'I want Justice!', 'I want Justice!'.

The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate finally lost his patience and politely told the litigant, Justices are in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court. I am a Metropolitan Magistrate. The entire Court erupted into laughter.

A GST Restoration Tale

Scene: Argument before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.

Advocate: "Your Lordships, I have filed a reply to the show cause notice issued by the department."

Senior Judge on the Bench: "Show us the reply."

Advocate (with confidence): “I don't have the copy right now, but it's clearly mentioned in the GST cancellation order that a reply was filed on so and so date.”

Senior Judge on the Bench (chuckling): "Don’t try to take benefit of this! They write this in every order, whether you filed the reply or not!"

Advocate: Admitting with a smile that no reply has been filed by the client.

Both Judges on the Bench: Laughed.

The entire courtroom: Burst into laughter.

The best part? Despite the laughter, relief was granted, GST restored and the client was happy!

This is a reminder that in the world of litigation, a sense of humor can go a long way!

Scene: A senior counsel arguing a trademark matter and taking too long to complete his arguments. The matter involved a restaurant abroad and the issue was its trans-border reputation in India.

Judge: “Counsel, are we on a scenic route to your argument, or is there a highway?”

Senior Advocate: “My Lord, I am merely stopping at all the necessary landmarks before we reach our destination.”

Judge: “Well, I am all in for scenic routes, but let’s speed up before we run out of fuel.”

Scene: Argument in a case regarding an immovable property.

Judge: “Are you saying that this property has been in dispute since the Mughal era?”

Advocate: “It feels like it, My Lord.”

Judge: “Well, then maybe we should summon Emperor Akbar for clarification?”

Advocate: "Summons have already been issued My Lord."

During the very first week of working under a respected senior at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in the morning rush, just 5 minutes before the sitting of the Court, I was asked by the senior to go to a particular court and to enquire from the Reader Sahab whether Judge Sahab is sitting today or not. I straightaway went to the courtroom and the following ensued:

Me: "Reader Sahab, Whether Judge Sahab is sitting today?"

Reader Sahab: Giving tough looks and not replying to the query.

Me: Again "Reader Sahab please tell me, I have to reply to my senior".

Reader Sahab: Not replying again but rotating his eyes in a different direction.

Judge Sahab: “Tell your senior that I am sitting today till 5 PM.”

Me: "Yes Sir" and I ran away from the courtroom with embarrassment.

My friends and I always laugh at myself, remembering this scene. It is of a time when senior's direction was followed by a junior, without fail.

Scene: In a suit, the defendant engaged a new counsel. On the date of hearing, the new counsel asked the Judge for an adjournment.

Counsel for Defendant: "My Lord may please grant me a short adjournment as I have been engaged recently."

Counsel for plaintiff: "My Lord, I don't understand why my learned friend is bringing in personal issues to the matter. I have been married for last 5 years."

Scene: After a short hearing in the High Court of Delhi, the Judge directed the Court Master to fix the next date of hearing on 14th November. However, the Counsel for the party insisted that 14th November may not be possible for him.

The Judge (on a lighter note): “Mr. Counsel, are you celebrating Children’s day on 14th November?”

Counsel (smiling): “My Lord, in a way, 14th November is the most important day in my life. I got enrolled as a lawyer on 14th November, I got married on 14th November and coincidentally, my child was also born on 14th November. So, please accommodate me.”

The entire Court burst into laughter.

Finally, the Judge was pleased to accommodate the request.

Advocate: My lady could you please have the matter after December 15th, 2024.

Judge: Why after December 15, 2024?

Advocate: I am in a difficulty – I am getting married.

Judge: That is not a difficulty.

Senior Advocate: “Your Lordship, I’m trying to be brief.”

Judge: “Counsel, you’ve been trying for a while now. You might want to try harder!”

After the bench had risen for the day and dates were being assigned for matters that couldn’t be taken up, a senior advocate pressed for an earlier date, insisting that his appeal had merit and deserved priority.

With a smirk, the court master responded, ‘If only I understood merits.’

A Hon’ble Judge asked the counsel for the respondent whether there would be a delay in filing the reply as the client had gone abroad. However, the young counsel, eager to demonstrate preparedness, confidently declared, “Milords, I already have the signed affidavit from her.”

The Hon’ble Judge, stifling a chuckle, advised the counsel, “Don’t make such statements in court that cannot be recorded in the order.”

This is a scene where a matter was listed for prosecution evidence and the complainant’s counsel sought time.

Complainant’s Counsel: “My-lady, there is a possibility that the matter may be settled. Kindly accommodate us.”
Magistrate: “31st January”.
Complainant’s Counsel: “My-lady, please list the matter after 10th February as I am getting married on 31st January and will be unavailable till 9th February.
Magistrate: “14th February”.
Counsel for accused: “My-lady, 14th February is Valentine’s day. May have it on 15th.”
Magistrate: “Someone is getting married, someone is celebrating Valentine’s Day and I am sitting here granting adjournments.”

Scene: A Division Bench of a High Court hearing a challenge against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court.

Senior Judge of the Division Bench (while dictating order): “Dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2 lac.”

Advocate: “Your Lordship, but the Ld. Single Judge had imposed the cost of Rs. 1 lac.”

Senior Judge of the Division Bench: But it was Single Bench and ours is Division Bench, so 1 lac from my side and 1 lac from my brother’s side.

The matter pertained to a labour dispute involving compassionate appointment and the issue of regularisation. The core submission made was for the regularisation of the deceased workmen, with the intent that their surviving spouses, who had been appointed in their place on compassionate grounds, could receive the consequential service benefits.

During the proceedings, the following exchange took place:

Counsel: “My Lady, the prayer I am seeking from this Hon’ble Court is for the regularisation of the workmen who have passed away, so that their wives, who have been appointed in their place, may also receive the consequential benefits of such regularisation.”

Judge: “Are you praying for the regularisation of deceased persons?”

Counsel: “Yes, My Lady.”

Judge: “Then maybe you should pray to the God.”

The courtroom responded with shared laughter, momentarily lightening the atmosphere.

In a bid to take a short date, one of the Lawyers, came up with one of the most novel, unorthodox, and unprecedented reasons, when he said "Court Master Sir, please give the shortest possible date, क्यूंकि एक पार्टी मरने वाली है। (because one of the parties is going to die soon)".

While the entire Court burst into laughter, and he was successful in getting a short date, I hope the client did not hear him. Certainly no one would want a shorter date at the cost of their lives.

A matter was listed before a Ld. Additional District Judge for filing of plaintiff’s evidence affidavit, but the plaintiff's counsel sought an adjournment, stating that he had been engaged just two days prior and needed more time to prepare the affidavit.

The Ld. Additional District Judge was visibly surprised to note that the vakalatnama bore names of 12 counsels. With a touch of wit, the Ld. Additional District Judge remarked:

“If each of the 12 advocates had drafted even one paragraph, the evidence affidavit would have been ready by now!”

The observation drew laughter in the courtroom.

During course of arguments, a Senior Advocate passionately submitted that, “the judgment of the Trial Court will open a Pandora’s box.”

Upon hearing this, the Hon’ble Judge paused and quipped, “Who is this Pandora that everyone keeps referring to, but no one seems to know?”

The unexpected remark left the entire courtroom in laughter, briefly lightening the otherwise intense proceedings.

Hon’ble Judge: “Mr. Counsel, you expect too much of indulgence from this Court.”

Counsel: “My Lord, I live upon your Lordship’s indulgence.”

Hon’ble Judge: “In that case, your life is going to be very short indeed.”

Scene: After a long hearing in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908, the arguments finally concluded and the Hon’ble Judge began dictating the order.

Hon’ble Judge: "...in view of the submissions made and the documents on record, this court is of the prima facie opinion that the plaintiff has made out a case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff..."

(As the Hon’ble Judge continued, the defendant's counsel, realizing the order was going against him, abruptly interjected.)

Defendant's Counsel: "Your Lordship's pardon for the interruption! But on this very point of 'balance of convenience', I have just one more authority I forgot to cite. It is squarely on the point..."

(The Hon’ble Judge stopped dictating and looked at the counsel calmly.)

Hon’ble Judge: "Counsel, the arguments were the flight. The judgment is the landing. The flight has now landed. You cannot ask the pilot to please take off again because you enjoyed the view from the window."

Scene: A hearing in a highly technical software patent appeal. The Senior Counsel for the appellant was painstakingly explaining the patented algorithm using a simple analogy.

Senior Counsel: "My Lords, to simplify the concept, one can think of our patented data sorting process like a librarian organizing a vast library. Before our invention, librarians had to manually check each book's title. Our process gives the librarian a special pair of glasses, allowing them to instantly see the correct shelf for every book just by looking at its cover."

(The senior counsel paused, clearly pleased with his simplification. The Hon’ble Judge on the bench, known for being tech-savvy, listened intently.)

Hon’ble Judge: "The court appreciates the analogy, Counsel. It is illuminating."

Senior Counsel: "Thank you, My Lord. I shall elaborate on the librarian's..."

Hon’ble Judge (interjecting gently): "However, Counsel, having gone through the patent specification and the two expert affidavits on record over the weekend, the court is now fully familiar with the library. You may proceed on the assumption that we have found the 'special glasses' and are now ready to proceed to the next argument."

Scene: A hearing in a trademark matter. A very diligent junior counsel is arguing on a foundational principle of trademark law.

Junior Counsel: "My Lords, on the well-settled proposition that the ultimate test is the likelihood of confusion from the perspective of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, I will begin by citing the Parle Products versus J.P. & Company. I will then take Your Lordships through the principles laid down in Cadila Health Care, followed by Amritdhara Pharmacy, and then the five key tests enunciated in the..."

(The senior Judge on the Division Bench holds up a hand, stopping him mid-sentence.)

Hon’ble Judge: "Counsel, one moment."

Junior Counsel (straightening up): "Yes, My Lord."

Hon’ble Judge: "The principles you are citing are, as you rightly said, well-settled. They are the bedrock of this branch of law. This court is intimately familiar with them." 

(The Hon’ble Judge pauses, then gives a slight smile.)

Hon’ble Judge: "You do not need to prove the existence of gravity before beginning your physics lesson. Please, take us directly to the facts of your case."

Scene: A tense, post-lunch hearing in a complex patent case.

The entire dispute hinged on the interpretation of the word "substantially" as used in a patent claim for a new pharmaceutical formula.

Both senior counsels had been arguing for over an hour, citing dictionaries, prior art and foreign judgments.

Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff: "...and therefore, Your Lordship, 'substantially' in this context must be interpreted to mean a purity level of at least 98.5%, not the 95% level achieved by the defendant."

(The Hon’ble Judge, who had been listening patiently, looked up from the voluminous files, adjusted his glasses, and glanced at the clock on the wall.)

Hon’ble Judge: "Mr. Counsel, for the past seventy-five minutes, both sides have argued with great vigor on the meaning of 'substantially'. The court is now substantially convinced that the word 'substantially' has lost all substantial meaning."

(A burst of laughter went through the courtroom, including from both senior counsels, breaking the tension completely.)