Copy Of Every Document Filed In Court Must Be Supplied To Opposite Party Unless Exempted By Court : Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court today made it clear that whenever any party to a litigation gives any document to the Court/ Tribunal, the copy of such document has to mandatorily be supplied to the opposite party, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

It stated that an exemption from the above position can be sought only in exceptional cases, such as those concerning Official Secrets Act, etc.

Observing thus, a Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh imposed Rs. 10,000/- cost on a party, seeking relief against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, requiring it to serve advance pleadings on the opposite party.

"It ought to be kept in mind that even if there is no oral direction by NCLAT to supply written submission to other side counsel, whenever any party to litigation in any Court or Tribunal gives any document to the Court or Tribunal, copy of such document has to be supplied to the other side counsel.
It is the bounden duty of this Appellant to supply a copy of written submissions to other side counsel. There cannot be any document which is supplied to the Court or Tribunal, a copy thereof is not given to the other side," the Bench observed in its order.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by one Captain Atul Jain, appearing in person, claiming to be a Airforce veteran and a member of the Bar. His primary grievance was that NCLAT, Delhi required him to supply advance pleadings to the opposing counsel, which he said is not permitted in law.

There is no such provision in law that provides what I have to argue in future, I have to submit today, he argued.

Jain also informed the Bench that his appeal from the said order was earlier dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court on the ground that he had used a slang "Tom, Dick and Harry" in his petition.

Use Of Slang Like 'Tom, Dick & Harry' Not Permissible In Pleadings : Delhi HC Dismisses Petition

"I have been painted black by the single Judge. I am a professor of law teaching ethos. I am an Advocate and a Airforce veteran. Unfortunately, the High Court took offence of the alleged slang. 'Tom, Dick and Harry' is an idiom. Hundreds of Judges have used this term in their judgments," he submitted.

The Division Bench observed that there is no infirmity in the single Judge's order. It added,

"Now the bottle neck starts. This Appellant submitted that NCLAT bench cannot direct this Appellant to supply a copy of written submissions to other side counsel. This is a wrong notion in the mind of Appellant.

Only in exceptional cases or in rarest of rare cases, and whenever there is a specific order of the Court, then only copy of document can be given to the Court without supplying it to other side counsel. Example, if Police has to give any document during pendency of investigation and other side is an accused, there may be a possibility that such document may be given to Court or Tribunal but copy of such document will not be given to accused. This type of phenomenon is exceptional.

As a matter of rule, if any party or litigation before a Court/ Tribunal is tendering any document to the Court/ Tribunal, copy of such document has to be supplied to the other side counsel. Much has been argued by the party in person that there is no such rule/ regulation. This contention of the Appellant cannot be accepted.

We dismiss this petition with cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to DSLSA within 4 weeks."

Case Title: Capt Atul Jain v. NCLAT