The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a petition after finding that it contained “slang language” in relation to the working of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (GP Atul Jain vs NCLAT).
The Petitioner, who appeared in-person, alleged that wrong procedures were being adopted by the two tribunals.
The petition, which appeared to have been drafted by the petitioner on his own, read,
“(f) The AA / NCLT cannot permit any person – Tom, Dick, and Harry to represent and defend the respondent u/s-7 of IBC, as the rules does not permit it.”
A single-Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh took strong objection to the language employed by the petitioner in his petition.
“Can you use this kind of language in the pleadings.. You are writing about a tribunal,” she said.
Although the petitioner apologised for using such language, the Court refused to entertain the petition and opined,
“The Petitioner appears to have drafted the petition on his own. A perusal of paragraph 6(f) shows that there is slang language being used in this petition. Such language is not permissible in pleadings before the Court. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by any order of the NCLT or NCLAT, he may draft a proper petition and only then, file the same,” the Court ordered.
“If I find this kind of language, I will not entertain this again,” the Court added as it asked the petitioner to get a lawyer to get the petition drafted properly.
Since the Petitioner was appearing in person, the Court refrained from imposing costs