#DelhiHC hearing plea by Capt Atul Jain against NCLAT order which dismissed his petition allegedly without hearing him and took his comment “tom dick and harry” as slang.
Capt Atul Jain appears petitioner in person.
Jain gives a brief background of his case.
#NCLAT #DelhiHighCourt
Jain gives a brief background of his case.
#NCLAT #DelhiHighCourt
Bench-What was the section 7 IBC application?
Jain-It was for starting CIRP against. Tripathi Hospital Pvt Ltd Noida.
Bench- How much was the default amount?
Jain-In 1914 it was 40 lakhs
#delhihighcourt
Jain-It was for starting CIRP against. Tripathi Hospital Pvt Ltd Noida.
Bench- How much was the default amount?
Jain-In 1914 it was 40 lakhs
#delhihighcourt
Bench- What happened to your section 7 application?
Jain-It was rejected by NCLT Allahabad. My appeal is against the single judge order of NCLAT.
#DelhiHighCourt
Jain-It was rejected by NCLT Allahabad. My appeal is against the single judge order of NCLAT.
#DelhiHighCourt
Jain- The NCLAT asked me to provide advanced pleadings for the next 10 hearings which I did. 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 should be decided.
My simple request is whatever written submissions I have made before NCLAT should be decided.
Bench- You gave your written submissions on which date?
Jain-On 12th Oct I was asked and I gave them on 2nd November, 2020.
My only request is to ask the opposite party to submit its counter affidavit and based on it my application should be submitted.
#DelhiHighCourt
Jain-On 12th Oct I was asked and I gave them on 2nd November, 2020.
My only request is to ask the opposite party to submit its counter affidavit and based on it my application should be submitted.
#DelhiHighCourt
Jain- I am a professor of law and I tech ethics to my student. The word “tom dick and harry is used as an idiom” and it is available in almost all the dictionary of the world and is used by various judges also.
Kindly remove this black paint.
#DelhiHighCourt
Kindly remove this black paint.
#DelhiHighCourt
NCLT Allahabad dismissed his plea on 25th june, 2020.
Order
An appeal was filed before NCLAT. It is submitted that NCLT vide order dated 12th Oct, 2020 directed that written submissions be filed by the appellant which was given on 2nd November.
Order
An appeal was filed before NCLAT. It is submitted that NCLT vide order dated 12th Oct, 2020 directed that written submissions be filed by the appellant which was given on 2nd November.
Order
The petitioner submits that the written submissions were asked by the opposite party which the petitioner is not ready to provide since its not mentioned in the rules.
The petitioner submits that the written submissions were asked by the opposite party which the petitioner is not ready to provide since its not mentioned in the rules.
Order
Being aggrieved by the NCLAT decision a petition was moved which has been dismissed by the learned single judge after which the present appeal has been filed.
He submits that there is no rule which provides that written submissions be provided to the opposite party.
Being aggrieved by the NCLAT decision a petition was moved which has been dismissed by the learned single judge after which the present appeal has been filed.
He submits that there is no rule which provides that written submissions be provided to the opposite party.
Order
We are not in agreement with the petitioner.
There are several grievances raised by the petitioner against Tripathi Hospital Pvt Ltd Noida UP. This application was dismissed by Allhabad bench against which an appela was preferred before NCLAT.
We are not in agreement with the petitioner.
There are several grievances raised by the petitioner against Tripathi Hospital Pvt Ltd Noida UP. This application was dismissed by Allhabad bench against which an appela was preferred before NCLAT.
Order
It appears that vide interim order NCLAT bench has passws an order that appellant may supply weittem submissions. Now the bottlenect starts. This appellant submitted that NCLAT bench cannot direct him to supply the copy of written submissions to the opposite party.
It appears that vide interim order NCLAT bench has passws an order that appellant may supply weittem submissions. Now the bottlenect starts. This appellant submitted that NCLAT bench cannot direct him to supply the copy of written submissions to the opposite party.
Order
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.
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.
Order
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.
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.
Order
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.
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.
Order
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.
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
