The Delhi High Court rejected the request after finding a slang language in the petition. The applicant, appearing directly, accused the wrong procedure adopted by NCLT and NCLAT.
GP Atul Jain vs NCLAT
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain the petition after finding that it contained "slang language" in connection with the work of the NCLT and National Law Appellate Tribunal (GP Atul Jain vs NCLAT).
The applicant, who appeared directly, accused that the wrong procedure was adopted by both courts.
The petition, which seems to have been compiled by the applicant itself, read,
"(F) AA / NCLT cannot allow anyone - Tom, Dick, and Harry to represent and maintain IBC U / S-7 respondents, because the rules do not allow it."
Strong objection to the language employed by the petitioner in the petition
A single Judge bench by justice Prattica M Singh took a strong objection to the language employed by the petitioner in her petition.
"Can you use a language like this in proceedings? you wrote to the court," he said.
Even though the Petitioner apologized for using such a language (wrong procedure), the court refused to entertain the petition and advised,
Applicant harmed by NCLT or NCLAT sequences
"The Petitioner seems to have compiled its own petition. Permanent Paragraph 6 (F) shows that there is slang language (wrong procedure) used in this application. The language is not permitted in the applicant in front of the court. Thus, this petition is responsible. To be dismissed. If the applicant has been harmed by NCLT or NCLAT sequences, it can compile the right petition and only then, file it, "the court-ordered.
"If I find a language like this, I will not entertain this again," The court added when asking the applicant to get a NCLT lawyer to get the petition properly drafted.
Though the applicant appeared directly, the court refrained from imposing costs.
