Read Time: 08 minutes

The Delhi High Court today dismissed with a cost of Rs 10,000, an appeal by a law professor against a single judge order which had dismissed his petition raising a grievance relating to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and had expressed displeasure over usage of the phrase “Tom, Dick and Harry” in the petition. The petitioner, Capt Atul Jain today told court, “I am a professor of law and I teach ethics to my student. The word “tom dick and harry is used as an idiom” and it is available in almost all the dictionaries of the world and has been used by various judges also. The single judge has black painted me. Kindly remove this black paint.”

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Capt Atul Jain, a Professor of Law, Advocate and an Airforce Veteran who had moved court earlier as well against an NCLAT order directing him to supply advance pleadings for the next 10 hearings to the opposite party.

Hearing his petition, which also used the phrase "Tom, Dick and Harry" in it, a Single Judge bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh in March this year had dismissed the same on various grounds, inter alia that such “slang language” is not permissible in pleadings before a court of law. The High Court, which declined to entertain the petition, had said it was refraining from imposing costs at this stage since the petitioner was appearing in person.

During the course of hearing today Jain submitted that the NCLAT had asked him to provide advanced pleadings for the next 10 hearings which he supplied.

Jain however said “Kindly tell me which rule prescribes supply of advanced pleadings for the next 10 hearings. My simple request is whatever written submissions I have made before NCLAT, a direction should be passed to the opposite party to file counter affidavit and my case should be decided.”

The Court after hearing Jain at length passed an oral order which said “The petitioner submits that the written submissions were asked by the opposite party which the petitioner is not ready to provide since it is not mentioned in the rules.

 We are not in agreement with the petitioner.  Now the bottleneck starts, this appellant submitted that NCLAT bench cannot direct him to supply the copy of written submissions to the opposite party.

This is a wrong notion in the mind of the appellant. Even if there is no oral order to supply written submissions to the opposite party, whenever any party gives any document in any tribunal or court a copy of such document ought to be provided to the opposite party.

In the present case the petitioner had supplied written submissions to the NCLAT. Even if there is no oral order by NCLAT it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to supply a copy of the written submissions to the opposite party.

Only in exceptional or rarest of rare cases only a copy of a document may be given to the court without supplying it to the other party. For eg if police is to supply a document to the court, such copy may not be given to the opposite party.

As a matter of rule if any party to the proceeding before a tribunal is supplying a written submissions to the tribunal the same has to be supplied to the other party.

The contention of the petitioner is not accepted by the court that there is not rule which provides a copy of written submissions to the other side. The aforesaid reasons have been aptly given by the single judge. We are in full agreement with the reasons given.

We dismiss the petition with a cost of Rs 10,000.”

Case Title: Capt Atul Jain vs NCLAT and ors

Edited by Shreya Agarwal