"Do Little Service To This Court Or Sanctity Of It's Procedure": Delhi High Court Unhappy Over Improper Filing Of Document In Petition
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed it's unhappiness over improper filing of a notice in the form of a 'folded photograph' in the petition remarking that such filing "do little service to the Court or sanctity of it's procedure".Justice C Hari Shankar noted that the notice dated 23rd February, 2021 issued by the petitioner in the matter to the respondent, was filed in the form of a...
The Delhi High Court has recently expressed it's unhappiness over improper filing of a notice in the form of a 'folded photograph' in the petition remarking that such filing "do little service to the Court or sanctity of it's procedure".
Justice C Hari Shankar noted that the notice dated 23rd February, 2021 issued by the petitioner in the matter to the respondent, was filed in the form of a folded photograph in which the fingers of the person holding the paper were also visible.
"To my mind, such filing is completely impermissible," the Court said.
At the outset, the Court was also of the view that notice was a mere four page document, which should have been typed out and filed, in case there was no other way of filing the document.
"Filing of documents such as the document at pages 91 to 94 of the documents filed by the petitioner do little service to this Court or the sanctity of its procedure," the Court said.
It also directed thus:
"The Registry is also directed to ensure that filing of documents in this fashion is not tolerated in future, unless the document is one which cannot be typed or the typing of which would be disproportionately cumbersome."
Accordingly, the Court renotified the matter on December 7 in order to enable the petitioner to place a typed copy of the document on record.
Recently, Justice Shankar had directed it's Registry to take steps for ensuring that separate record of pending as well as disposed of applications in company matters is maintained in order to save Court's time.
It had also said that at times, there were multiple applications by various parties who are often interested in the same property. However, since all the applications were placed in separate folders, they are listed on different dates, and therefore there is always a possibility of the Court passing an order to the prejudice of a party who was unheard.
Title: JJ RESTAURANTS GURGAON LLP v. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD