SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The principal question that arises in this appeal at the admission stage of a creditor's winding-up petition is how to treat a cross-claim of the company that has not been adjudicated upon though it appears to be for an amount exceeding the creditor's debt. The creditor is the appellant here, questioning the propriety of a judgment and order dated November 3, 2014, delivered some sixteen months or so after the hearing was concluded in the matter.
(2.) The appellant complains of the inordinate delay in the judgment being delivered and says that merely on such ground the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The appellant refers to the principle enunciated in the judgment reported at (2001) 7 SCC 318 ( Anil Rai v. State of Bihar ) where the court observed that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice withheld is even worse than that. Though the delay in the Anil Rai case was of nearly two years, it was observed in the report that in civil matters judgment must be pronounced within two months of the hearing being concluded. The appellant laments that several of the legal grounds canvassed by it before the company court are not reflected at all in the impugned judgment.
(3.) However, merely on the ground of delay in delivering the impugned judgment an appellate forum should not remand the matter for a fresh consideration before the original forum since that would do greater disservice to the litigants. Ordinarily, in such a situation, the matter should be considered afresh by the appellate forum without reference to the judgment impugned since it is impossible for all facets of the rival submission to be reflected in a judgment that is delivered after three months or so from the conclusion of the hearing. Regrettable as it is, the parties may lose a forum or tier in such process.;