Ola drives Delhi HC to almost throwing a permanent ban at rule-breaking, pollution causing cab app

Wednesday, 29 July 2015 By Legally India News

Taxi-calling app Ola Cabs drove the Delhi high court to the point of suggesting that the app should be permanently banned as it was plying in Delhi without permission from the city’s transport department, reported the Express.

An irate bench headed by justice Manmohan Singh, while hearing Ola’s plea challenging the transport department’s order, told its counsel Khalid Arshad: “I was initially thinking that I shouldn’t ban you, but if you insist on plying without (following) rules then I will have to ban you… you have gone haywire. You are not agreeing to any conditions… your clients are taking the court for a ride. This is not an Ola cab, this is the court.”

“We are trying to find a pragmatic solution and you’ve pushed me into a corner where I will be forced to uphold a complete ban,” warned the court which has now closed arguments and will pronounce the final order on Ola’s plea.

Ola was to renew its licenses in Delhi before plying further.

The court also said that diesel-based commercial vehicles cannot be allowed to run in Delhi and only clean fuels can be used now. But Arshad argued that cabs operated by Ola were all-India permit taxis that comply with Euro-II or Euro-IV emission norms, and could not be banned from operating in Delhi.

“We are the most polluted city in the world. Posterity will not spare us, future generations will not spare us at all,” retorted the bench.

Ola cabs Ola

Comments

Ola Ola 29 Jul 2015, 11:52

+5 -1

Well...you missed the real gossip. The Company had briefed SAM Delhi for this matter too and they had committed to get a very very heavyweight Senior counsel to appear who did not show up and when the judge was not inclined to grant an adjourment, the client requested the SAM partner to argue the matter, who simply refused saying that he had no instructions to argue!

kianganz 29 Jul 2015, 12:13

+0 -0

Oooh, my gossipy self wants to know - which senior and which partner?

CourtHound 29 Jul 2015, 12:34

+3 -0

Well.. It was [...] .. Hitherto unheard of.. Grapevine is that he wasn't prepared to argue.. And mentioned to the Court that Mr Chidambaram was to appear.. Unfortunately justice Manmohan does not like name dropping.. And it did not go down well with him..

CourtHound 29 Jul 2015, 12:36

+5 -0

Also if the client request the SAM partner to argue, isn't that a client instruction? I mean.. It's a no brainer! U can't tell your client I have no instructions to argue, when he's giving you the damn instruction!

kianganz 29 Jul 2015, 12:39

+0 -5

Yeah, though maybe clients instructions were that they wanted a senior to argue...

Not sure if SAM partner can be blamed completely - the bigger malaise seems to be that senior counsel often don't bother turning up to hearings or are overbooked, no?

Gulabjamun 29 Jul 2015, 13:00

+2 -0

Shoudnt these scoundrels be booked for professional misconduct for not appearing? what is the bci doing about this? high point someone brought this mater up- maybe under the CPA? Mr. Khosla? heres your chance.

Ola Ola 29 Jul 2015, 13:40

What will the BCI do? Their 'brand' always bails them out and they get away. Who knows as we speak, the client is sitting in thier office discussing the strategy going forward!

Ola Ola 29 Jul 2015, 12:46

+1 -1

Well....the briefing counsel has to be prepared to argue if the Senior does not show up. Poor [...] who was dumped from [...] a few months ago and was merely used by Ola to file the writ had to argue because the judge said that argue if you want otherwise he was going to pass an order. His arguments were so inasne that the judge at one point remarked that ' I should hold you for contempt for making such nonsensical arguments'...

Client 29 Jul 2015, 16:26

+4 -0

I am a client and have to use these big firms because of multiple reasons (including covering my a$$). And let us all be honest here - how many briefing lawyers (partners at such Firms) can actually argue a matter at HC? How many of these argue on even a weekly basis?

Let us not single SAM alone - I've seen SAME standards at all major Delhi firms at least.

Uber 29 Jul 2015, 17:33

And in the process of covering your ass you end up covering theirs all the time. Mutual back scratching!

Client, again 30 Jul 2015, 05:39

+1 -0

Well, let me tell you- not all 'top' Firms are hired because we (in-house counsel) recommend / select them. You will be surprised at the level of 'interest' that top management (CEO/ CXO or the Global legal team) has for selecting some particular Firms - for their own set of reasons.

And yes, you have not commented on the general lack of actual litigation skills that these partner set represent.

same boat 29 Jul 2015, 18:59

could not agree with you more. It is an experience which is very common. Most of the briefing counsels, including those at the level of partner, at these big law firms will not be able to argue even if they had the instructions to do so. They do not know the law nor have they really worked on the case themselves, so lack the confidence to argue. Also they are afraid that this will expose their quality/competence before the entire world.

Confused Zeus Says . . . 30 Jul 2015, 02:52

I once engaged a Tier 1 law firm in two cases which were clubbed. Big law partner in turn engaged a senior counsel. On one occasion, the two cases somehow got separated and only one case was listed on a particular date. All big law partner had to do was mention that the case was clubbed with another and request an adjournment so that both the cases could be heard together. I was appalled when big law partner suggested that senior counsel be briefed for this mention. Shows how terribly incompetent they are. The point is - if your firm is not capable of handling litigation, be candid about it.

Ha Ha 29 Jul 2015, 13:27

+9 -0

The client can expect a discount of 10% on the Rs. 1 lakh per day fee that SAM's briefing counsel would have charged.

Ha Ha 29 Jul 2015, 13:30

+17 -0

". . .your clients are taking the court for a ride. This is not an Ola cab, this is the court.” This quote should go down as a classic.

Ola Ola 30 Jul 2015, 09:21

Some more gossip...[...] and others from SAM had gone to brief Mr. Chidambram a day before the matter. He asked them several questions and they did not have an answer [...]. He returned the brief saying that he cannot argue a matter where he has not been briefed properly and told them to take an adjournment and come back again to him before the next date well prepared!!

kianganz 30 Jul 2015, 09:23

Is this true?

Ola Ola 30 Jul 2015, 09:29

Yes, you can treat this as first hand info Mr. Ganz! So they knew very well on the date of the hearing that Mr. Chidambram (who they had committed and based on which commitment only they had got the brief from the client) is not going to appear and therefore they sought and adjournment when the matter was first called. Anyone who knows jutice Manmoham reasonably well, knows that he never grants an adjournment on the ground of the Senior not being able to appear.

Mx. X 31 Jul 2015, 17:19

Really? Strange! SAM partners/ associates may not be great, but they are not this incompetent! In fact, this is the first time I have heard any senior advocate returning a brief saying he wasn't briefed properly...

You are not pulling a fast one Ola Ola?

Defamation 30 Jul 2015, 11:41

Hi Kian , can you actually verify this? Otherwise isn't it patently defamatory to a lawyer whose name has been allowed to be published?

kianganz 30 Jul 2015, 11:49

Thanks for pointing out, have redacted names.

Mx. X 31 Jul 2015, 17:12

Too late!

Ola Ola 4 Aug 2015, 10:01

Ola, filed an appeal against the order, which was listed today. Interestingly, the Company has dropped SAM because they could not 'deliver' a heavy weight senior in the previous hearing. How ironic that the only value proposition of leading firm (by rankings!) is committing to get a Senior Counsel to appear!!

kianganz 4 Aug 2015, 10:10

Ola Ola 4 Aug 2015, 10:30

I was in court....first hand information....no one from SAM was there as a part of the Ola team....obviously the Company isn't paying them to sit in their offices!

Ola Ola 11 Aug 2015, 15:48

The judgement was pronounced today and the appeal was dismissed. Again, no one from SAM was present for judgement pronouncement!!

Commenting is closed for this article.