- (1.) When I had first perused the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Limited and others, 1986 1 SCC 264, I could hardly envisage that I will be accosted with the similar, if not, identical situation in my Court:- "Problems of high finance and broad fiscal policy which truly are not and cannot be the province of the court for the very simple reason that we lack the necessary expertise and, which, in any case, are none of our business are sought to be transformed into questions involving broad legal principles in order to make them the concern of the court. Similarly what may be called the 'political' processes of 'corporate democracy' are sought to be subject to investigation by us by invoking the principle of the Rule of Law, with emphasis on the rule against arbitrary State action. An expose of the facts of the present case will reveal how much legal ingenuity may achieve by way of persuading courts, ingenuously, to treat the variegated problems of the world of finance, as litigable public-right-questions. Courts of justice are well-tuned to distress signals against arbitrary action. So corporate giants do not hesitate to rush to us with cries for justice. The court room becomes their battle ground and corporate battles are fought under the attractive banners of justice, fair-play and the public interest. We do not deny the right of corporate giants to seek our aid as well as any Lilliputian farm labourer or pavement dweller though we certainly would prefer to devote more of our time and attention to the latter. We recognise that out of the dust of the battles of giants occasionally emerge some new principles, worth the while. That is how the law has been progressing until recently. But not so now. Public interest litigation and public assisted litigation are today taking over many unexplored fields and the dumb are finding their voice. In the case before us, as if to befit the might of the financial giants involved, innumerable documents were filed in the High Court, a truly mountainous record was built up running to several thousand pages and more have been added in this court. Indeed, and there was no way out, we also had the advantage of listening to learned and long drawn-out, intelligent and often ingenious arguments, advanced and dutifully heard by us. In the name of justice, we paid due homage to the causes of the high and mighty by devoting precious time to them, reduced, as we were, at times to the position of helpless spectators. Such is the nature of our judicial process that we do this with the knowledge that more worthy causes of lesser men who have been long waiting in the queue have blocked thereby and the queue has consequently lengthened. Perhaps the time is ripe for imposing a time-limit on the length of submissions and page- limit on the length of judgments. The time is probably ripe for insistence on brief written submissions backed by short and time-bound oral submissions. The time is certainly ripe for brief and modest arguments and concise and chaste judgments. In this very case we heard arguments for 28 days and our judgment runs to 181 pages and both could have been much shortened. We hope that we are not hoping in vain that the vicious circle will soon break and that this will be the last of such mammoth cases. We are doing our best to disentangle the system from a situation into which it has been forced over the years by the existing procedures. There is now a public realisation of the growing weight of the judicial burden. The cooperation of the bar too is forthcoming though in slow measure. Drastic solutions are necessary. We will find them and we do hope to achieve results sooner than expected. So much for sanctimonious sermonising and now back to our case".
(2.) High profile lawyers appeared in this case also and the matter was argued for months together. The appeal was filed on November 28, 2011 and the oral arguments were last heard on 2.3.2012. Even when the oral arguments mercifully came to an end, it was requested that the parties may be allowed to file written arguments. The prayer was but to be allowed. The defendant filed their written arguments as late as on 15th March, 2012 while the appellants had filed it earlier.
(3.) It is also noteworthy that 13 different compilations each running into thousands of pages was submitted before the Court though for its convenience. The lawyers from both sides have argued exhaustively and with great vehemence. The points were hammered with such persistence that they could disintegrate all seven colours of rainbow. The judgment was attacked from all corners. The facts and the law were scattered and thrown into the vast legal cosmos. It is the duty of the Court to collect all these colours to reconstitute the spectrum and try to make it visible through the hazy clouds of arguments. It will be difficult to write a small judgment but an attempt will be made to write a judgment which is comprehensive and yet understandable.;