Asia IP Profiles Survey Deadline Extended
27 March 2020Asia IP Profiles 2020 ranks IP firms across APAC.
30 April 2020
In the current pandemic situation, the Indian judiciary has developed new ways to administer justice. To ensure that justice is delivered, lawyers can now argue matters through video conferencing system like Cisco Webex or Zoom. However, the catch is that this system will only work if the arguments are taken up as online appointments and have a timeslot allotted. In other words, all the arguments would be ‘time-bound’.
It is proposed that limiting the time through such time slots can be the only possible way to dispense justice efficiently, and this model ought to be adopted by the courts for IP litigation even after the pandemic is over.
It is important to note that lifespan of a fully contested litigation in India has been reduced, thanks to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Apart from the fact that most of the matters are resolved through settlements or mediation, several time limits have also been strictly enforced under the act, including:
Similar deadlines exist for the filing of other documents, preferring of Chamber Appeals and Appeals to the Division Bench.
Despite having the aforesaid mechanisms in place, most of the contested matters remain stuck at the final stage, i.e., at a stage where the evidence is completed, and the matter is pending for arguments and judgement. Such matters are not taken up by the court because:
At times, final matters are taken up by the court upon filing an application showing the grounds of urgency, and an hour or two is dedicated to the matter. However, the matter seldom gets concluded in the allotted time frame and is eventually adjourned, because:
Upon cogitation, one realizes that the pending final matters before the Indian Courts have a lot to offer, once decided:
Therefore, it is paramount to dispose pending final matters to obtain judgments, and the efficacious way to do that is by having time slots. For the convenience of readers, the mechanics are explained below:
If a party wants more time, they must file an application before a hearing officer (who functions as a timekeeper) and convince the officer of the need for more time; accordingly, the hearing officer might or might not permit additional time slots. This time slot system will ensure that the hearing is concluded in time bound manner.
Time slots are thus sine qua non of an effective hearing and ought to be implemented with three clear understandings:
There is thus a key realization that the timely disposal of litigation matters alone can serve the ends of justice.
Please wait while the page is loading...