The act of misleading the court, as per the order, was done by both the appellant and his self-proclaimed lawyer.
New Delhi: An individual, who for years was impersonating himself as a lawyer and appearing before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and Competition Commission of India (CCI), will now face legal action.
This is likely to be the first such case where the NCLAT has come down on “fake” lawyers, a practice, which as per people aware of the matter, is common in front of the tribunals. The Principal Bench of NCLAT in Delhi on Friday, headed by Justice Rakesh Kumar, who was appointed as a member in May this year and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra, while delivering its order in case where an individual, Dushyant, had moved as appeal with the NCLAT against an order given by the CCI in February 2022 in his application against 37 opposite parties comprising different government of India agencies. In his application the individual had alleged that the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) was acting in a monopolistic manner and it was given undue preference by government agencies.
However, this contention was not agreed to by the CCI, after which the appellant, through his lawyer, moved the NCLAT. During the hearing, the NCLAT “got some doubt regarding the status of the appellant” and asked for a detailed affidavit showing the status of the appellant.
It was after a detailed affidavit was placed before the two members that it emerged that the appellant himself was a proprietor of an accreditation agency, something, which he failed to mention either before the CCI or before the NCLAT. This, according to the NCLAT order, was done by him to evade the applicable court fee which is classified on the basis of the status of the applicant.
This act of misleading the court, as per the order, was done by both the appellant and his self-proclaimed lawyer. During the course of the hearing, the two-member NCLAT bench discovered that the said individual who was appearing in the case, Sumit Jain, was neither a lawyer nor was he a Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary or a Cost Accountant.
“The other thing which we have noticed is most disturbing. Before the CCI, Information was filed by the Appellant through Mr Sumit Jain who claimed as counsel, whereas while hearing was going on, on being asked as to why he had not filed Vakalatnama, Mr Jain candidly admitted that he was not an Advocate. Mr Sumit Jain was again asked whether he was Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary or Cost Accountant, on which he replied that he was not either CA, CS or Cost Accountant,” the judgment says.
“Even then pretending to be counsel, he has filed the present appeal as well as information before the CCI. In such a view of the matter, particularly on the ground that the Appellant has misled the CCI as well as this Tribunal regarding his actual entity i.e. a proprietorship agency, there is no need to examine the Appeal on merit. With a view to preserve sanctity of the court proceeding and confidence of the public in the system, simply dismissal of this Appeal may not serve the purpose. Further to prevent recurrence of such activity, while dismissing the appeal it is appropriate to impose cost on the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed with imposition cost of Rs 1 lakh on the appellant,” it states.
Taking a more stringent view against the individual, who for years was falsely presenting himself as a lawyer, Justice Rakesh said, “Mr Sumit Jain has pretended to be a counsel and unauthorisedly appeared in the present Appeal, it is desirable to direct the Registrar of this Tribunal to take appropriate steps in accordance with law,” while directing the CCI to exercise vigilance to keep out unauthorized representation.