AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion arises from an internal procedural question within the Supreme Court of India: whether applications seeking condonation of delay in filing a petition of appeal should continue to be heard by a Single Judge sitting in Chambers or be listed before the full Court. Notices were issued to the Attorney General and the Bar Association because a change was sought to the long-standing practice (in place since 1966) of the Chamber Judge dealing with such applications.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, under Order 6 Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules, an application for condonation of delay in filing a petition of appeal constitutes “enlargement or abridgement of time” that can be heard by a Single Judge in Chambers.
  2. Whether refusing such an application in Chambers would improperly amount to dismissal of the appeal, thereby requiring the matter to be heard by the Court instead of the Chamber Judge.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Argument (advanced before the Chamber Judge)

  • If the Chamber Judge refuses to condone the delay, it effectively dismisses the appeal; hence, only the Court, not a Single Judge in Chambers, should hear these applications.
  • The existing practice should be discontinued and all such applications listed before the Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Cocker v. Tempest A court’s inherent and unlimited power over its own process. Invoked to support the view that established procedural practices of the Court carry the force of law.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Order 6 Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules authorises a Single Judge in Chambers to exercise the Court’s powers on specified matters. Clause (14) expressly includes applications for “enlargement or abridgement of time,” except in three situations, one of which is condonation of delay in filing special leave petitions—not petitions of appeal.

2. Order 47 Rule 3 empowers the Court to enlarge or abridge any time fixed by the Rules, including the 60-day period prescribed by Order 15 for presenting a petition of appeal after grant of a certificate.

3. Because the Rules specifically exclude only special-leave-petition delays from Chamber jurisdiction, the natural implication is that all other time-extension applications, including those for petitions of appeal, remain within Chamber business.

4. The Court emphasised the maxim cursus curiae est lex curiae (“the practice of the Court is the law of the Court”) and noted that, since 1966, Chamber Judges have routinely determined such applications. Long-standing, unchallenged practice reinforces the interpretation that these matters belong in Chambers.

5. The precedent in Cocker v. Tempest and the referenced legal maxim were used to underline the Court’s inherent authority to regulate its own procedures and to maintain consistent practices unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.

6. Consequently, the Court rejected the contention that a Chamber refusal equals a dismissal by the Court; the Rules themselves furnish authority to the Chamber Judge to decide condonation applications without overstepping judicial hierarchy.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: Applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions of appeal fall within the scope of Chamber business under Order 6 Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules and may therefore be heard and decided by a Single Judge sitting in Chambers.

Implications: The established practice since 1966 is reaffirmed. Future applications for condonation of delay in petitions of appeal will continue to be listed before the Chamber Judge, ensuring procedural continuity; the decision does not create a new substantive precedent but clarifies and confirms internal court procedure.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Cit, Bombay City v. R.H Pandi, Managing Trustees Of Trust, Bombay .

    A.N Ray, C.J— In these matters a question arises as to whether applications for condonation of delay in filing petition of appeal can be 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 can dismiss an appeal.

    2. Notices were given to the Attorney General and the Bar Association 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.

    3. The relevant rule is Order 6, Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules. Order 6 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 condonation 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 6, Rule 2(14) are heard by the Judge in Chambers. An important exception is application for condonation of delay in filing special leave petitions.

    4. Order 47, 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 or 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 15 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 47 Rule 3 will apply with regard to enlargement or abridgement of any time appointed by the Rules for doing any act.

    5. Order 6, 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 petition are excepted from 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.

    6. 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.

    7. We are therefore of opinion that applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions of appeal are within the Chamber business under Order 6, Rule 2(14).

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Cit, Bombay City v. R.H Pandi, Managing Trustees Of Trust, Bombay .
    (Sep 4, 1974)