- (1.) WE heard these cases on 12th and 13th August, 2004 and then resumed hearing on 19.8.2004 and continued the hearing on 20th August, 2004 and 23rd August, 2004. This morning, when the arguments were to be resumed, in the contingency of one of us, the Chief Justice, retiring in the evening of 27.8.2004, we asked counsel for respondent No. 7 in the first writ petition, who was on his legs, whether he will to finish his argument by Lunch today. He submitted that he requires the whole of the day and tomorrow also. On behalf of the State of Bihar, it was submitted by counsel that Senior counsel for the State of Bihar will take two days time thereafter. It would mean that the respondents alone would be completing their arguments by the evening of 27.8.2004. Thereafter, some time for the reply on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. S.S.Ray and Dr. Debi Pal will be required. We have, in the circumstances, no adequate time to render the judgment.
(2.) TO sum -up, we had spent considerable time in this case and whatever be its magnitude or importance, considering the questions arising, we clearly feel that so much time is not necessary for putting forward one 'scontentions either for, or against, in this writ petition. Unfortunately we are left with the distinct impression that respondents are filibustering and want to postpone a judgment being rendered by us by the evening of 27.8.2004 when one of us will lay down office. This Court has always believed in courtesy to the bar and had seldom if even interfered with arguments or attempted to curtail arguments. We feel that the attempt to prolong the hearing is not bona fide. Even then, as one of us is to leave by 27.8.2004, at this stage, we do not want to give a go -bye to the courtesy, we have always shown to the bar and to stop counsel from continuing his arguments, which possibly in a given case, we may be able to or we can. In this situation, though we are conscious that we have spent a great deal of time in this case, with great reluctance, this Court is constrained to abandon the further hearing of the case. The case will be listed before the appropriate Court on 30.8.2004 so as to enable that Court to fix a date of hearing on ascertaining the view of the counsel appearing in the case. We feel that the dispute is like one between the cats over a loaf of bread and the monkey eating -up the same. It must be realized by the parties that the Company must exist to benefit the one who may ultimately succeed. What is now being done is to ensure the destruction of the Company in emulation of the above parable. An early resolution of the dispute is a must. Hence, we list this case on 30.8.2004 before the apropriate Bench for Orders as to posting it for hearing.
(3.) IN the contempt matter, counsel representing the registered office of the Company at Patna submitted that the registered office will have no difficulty in implementing the interim order, if the State of Jharkhand authorises somebody to go and inspect the papers. It is clarified that the registered office of the Company at Patna or the State of Bihar would not be entitled to object even if the authorisation is given to an officer of a lower rank or of the Company; so long as to he carries an authorization from the Government of Jharkhand.;