http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BOMBAY CITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.   H. PANDI MANAGING TRUSTEESOF TRUST, BOMBAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/09/1974

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2269            1975 SCR  (2)   7  1974 SCC  (2) 627  CITATOR INFO :  APR        1989 SC1298  (5,6,8)

ACT: Supreme  Court  Rules, 1966, 0.6 r.2(14).-  Whether  Chamber Judge  can dispose of applications for condonation of  delay in filing Petitions of appeal.

HEADNOTE: Order 6, Rule 2(14) provides that the powers of the Court in relation  to applications for enlargement or abridgement  of time except where the time is fixed by the Court or  relates to   deposit  of  security  and  except   applications   for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitions,  may be exercised by a single Judge sitting in Chambers. On  the  question whether applications  for  condonation  of delay in filing petitions ofappeal should be heard only by the Court which can dismiss the appeal andnot   by    the Judge,  in  Chambers,  because,  the  refusal  of  such   an applicationwill amount to dismissal of an appeal by  the Judge in Chambers, HELD : The words ’Enlargement or abridgement of time in  0.6 r. 2(14) of the Rules, take in applications for  enlargement of  time  appointed by the Rules.  A petition of  appeal  is required under Order 15 of the Rules to be presented  within 60 days from the grant of certificate of fitness, and  under Order  46, r. 3 of Rules, the Supreme Court, on  application may  enlarge and abridge the time appointed by  these  rules for  doing  any  act etc.  Therefore, a  Chamber  Judge  may exercise  the  powers  of  the  Court  in  relation  to  any application for condonation of delay in filing a petition of appeal.   In  fact, but for the exception in the  Rule  even applications  for  condonation of delay  in  filing  special leave  petitions would be included therein.   Further,  this practice  of  the  Chamber Judge  hearing  applications  for condonation  of delay in filing petitions of  appeal  within the  time  appointed  by the Supreme Court  Rules  has  been followed  ever since 1966.  Where a practice has existed  it is convenient to adhere to it, because, the practice of  the Court is the law of the Court. [8H-9C] Cocker v. Tempest 7 M. & W. 502, referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 895 to 897 of   1973. Appeals from the Judgment & Order dated the 9th April, 1970 of   the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref.  No. 105 of 1963. Civil Appeals Nos. 898 to 899, of 1973 Appeals from the Judgment & Order dated the 17th/18th March, 1970 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref.  No. 94 of 1963. Civil Appeal No. 2054 of 1971. Appeal from the judgment & Decree dated the 14th  September, 1969 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 435 of 1962. F.S.  Nariman,  Addl.   Solicitor  General,  and  R.   N. Sachthey, for the appellants (In CAs.  Nos. 895-899/73)  and for Attorney General. A.V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for the appellant (In  CA. No. 2054/71). 8 P.C.  Bhartari K. J. Johsn and J. B. Dadachanji, for  the respondents (In CAs.  Nos. 895-899). V. Srinivasan & Lily Thomas, for respondent No. 2 (In CA. No.  2054/71). A. K. Sen, and Janardan Sharma, for Sup.  Ct.  Bar Assn. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C. J.-In these matters a question arises as to  whether applications for condonation of delay in filing petition  of appeal  can b. heard by the Judge in Chambers.  An  argument is advanced before the Hon’ble Judge in Chambers that if  an application for condonation of delay is refused by the Judge in Chambers it will amount to dismissal of the appeal by the Judge  in  Chambers.   Therefore,  it  is  said  that  these applications  should be heard by the Court which alone  call dismiss an appeal. Notices were given to the Attorney General and the Bar Asso- ciation  because it was said that the existing  practice  of posting  applications  for condonation of  delay  in  filing petition  of appeal before the Judge in Chambers  should  be discontinued  and such applications should be listed  before the Court. The  relevant  rule is Order VI Rule 2(14)  of  the  Supreme Court Rules.  Order VI Rule 2 states that the powers of  the Court  in  relation  to  matters  enumerated  there  may  be exercised  by  a Single Judge sitting in  Chambers.   Clause (14)  reads "Applications for enlargement or abridgement  of time except where the time is fixed by the Court or  relates to  deposit  of security and except  applications  for  con- donation of delay in filing special leave petitions".  Under the Rules it follows that all applications- for  enlargement or  abridgement of time except the three cases mentioned  in Order VI rule 2(14) are heard by the Judge in Chambers.   An important exception is application for condonation of  delay in filing special leave petitions. Order  XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court  Rules  states that  the  Court may enlarge or abridge any  time  appointed by these rules or fixed  by any order enlarging time,  for doing  any  act of taking proceedings, upon such  terms  (if any)  as  the  justice  of the case  may  require,  and  any enlargement   may  be  ordered,  although  the   application therefore is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed. A petition of appeal is required under Order  XV of the Rules of this Court to be presented  within 60 days from the grant of certificate of fitness.  The  time to  present the petition of appeal is fixed by the Rules  of this  Court.  Therefore Order XLVII Rule 3 will  apply  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

regard to enlargement for abridgement of any time  appointed by the Rules for doing any act, Order  VI Rule 2(14) speaks of applications for  enlargement or  abridgement  of time.  Here the  words  "enlargement  or abridgement of time" take in applications for enlargement of time appointed by the Rules.  The significant feature in the Rules  is  that  applications for condonation  of  delay  in filing special leave petitions are excepted from 9 the business of a Chamber Judge.  The natural presumption is that but for the exception the Rule would have included also applications  for  condonation of delay  in  filing  special leave  petitions.  Any application for condonation of  delay in  filing  petition  of appeal  is  therefore  included  in applications for enlargement or abridgement of time. This practice of the Chamber Judge hearing applications  for condonation  of delay in filing petitions of  appeal  within the  time  appointed  by the Rules of this  Court  has  been followed ever since 1966.  Cursus curiae est lex curiae. The practice of the Court is the law of the Court.  See  Broom’s Legal  Maxims at p. 82.  Where a practice has existed it  is convenient to adhere to it because it is the practice.  "The power of each Court over its own process is unlimited; it is a power incident to all Courts".  See Cocker v. Tempest.(;’) We   are   therefore  of  opinion  that   applications   for condonation  of  delay  in filing petitions  of  appeal  are within the Chamber business under Order VI Rule 2(14). V. P. S. (1) 7 M & W 502. 10