# COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY v. R.H. PANDI MANAGING TRUSTEES OF TRUST, BOMBAY September 4, 974

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 7
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 895 to .897 of 1973
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, K. K. MATiiEW, Y. V. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/commissioner-of-income-tax-bombay-city-v-r-h-pandi-managing-trustees-of-trust-6248
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

7
Supreme Cou~t Rules, 1966, 0.6 r.2(14).- Whether Chamber Judge clan d/Spose of applications for condonaticn of delay in filing petitions of appeal.
Order 6, Rule 2(14) provides that the powers of the Court in relation to
applicatfons 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 of appeal should be heard only by the Court which can dismiss the
appeal and not 'by the Judge, ·in Chambers, because, the refusal of such an
application will amount to dismissal of an eppeul 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 fttne&S, 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 Jlractice of the .Chamber Jud~e
bearing 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.
CivrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 895 to .897
of 1973.
Appeals from the Judgmen~ & Order dated the 9th April, 1970
of the Bom~y High Court in l.T. Ref. No. 105of1963.
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 !·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, Addi. Solicitor General, .and R. N. Sachthe)I, for
H
the appellants (In CAs. Nos. 895-899/73) and for Attroney General.
·. A. V. Ran~ and A. Subhashini, for the appellant (In CA. No.
2054/71).
.
.
.
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
P. C. Bhartari K. J. Johsn and J. B. Dadachanji, for the respondents (In CAs. Nos. 895-899).
V. Sriniw.san & Lily Thomas, for respondent No. 2 (In CA.
No. 2054/71).
A. K .. Sen, and Janardan Sharma, for Sup. Ct. Bar Assn.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
BOMBAY CITY
v.
R.H. PANDI MANAGING TRUSTEES
OF TRUST, BOMBAY
September 4, 974
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATiiEW AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
7
Supreme Cou~t Rules, 1966, 0.6 r.2(14).- Whether Chamber Judge clan d/Spose of applications for condonaticn of delay in filing petitions of appeal.
Order 6, Rule 2(14) provides that the powers of the Court in relation to
applicatfons 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 of appeal should be heard only by the Court which can dismiss the
appeal and not 'by the Judge, ·in Chambers, because, the refusal of such an
application will amount to dismissal of an eppeul 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 fttne&S, 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 Jlractice of the .Chamber Jud~e
bearing 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.
CivrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 895 to .897
of 1973.
Appeals from the Judgmen~ & Order dated the 9th April, 1970
of the Bom~y High Court in l.T. Ref. No. 105of1963.
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 !·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, Addi. Solicitor General, .and R. N. Sachthe)I, for
H
the appellants (In CAs. Nos. 895-899/73) and for Attroney General.
·. A. V. Ran~ and A. Subhashini, for the appellant (In CA. No.
2054/71).
.
.
.
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
P. C. Bhartari K. J. Johsn and J. B. Dadachanji, for the respondents (In CAs. Nos. 895-899).
V. Sriniw.san & 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 fi1lna petition ol oppeal 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 dis·
missal of the appeal by the Juage in Chambers. Therefore, it is said
that these applications should be heard by the Court which alone can
dismiss an appeal.
· Noticen were given to the Attorney General and th: Bar Asso·
ciation because it was said. that ¢e existing practi~ of posting applications for condonation of delay in filing petition of appeal before the
Judge in Ch!IDlbers 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 m~y be exercised by a Single Judge
sitting in Chambers. Oauie (14) reads "Applications for enlarge·
ment or abridgement of time except where the time is fixed by tqe
Court or relates to deposit of security and except applications for condonation of delay in filin$ 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 X~VII Rule 3 of '1te Supreme Court RUles states that the
Co1,1rt may enlarge or abrdlge 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 applica·
tion therefor 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 re1?ard to enlargement I.or abridgement of any
time appoin~ 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. a~plications for ~nlargement o! time appointed by the
R:ules. The iqgi1.dicant feature 1n the Rules 1s that applications for
condonation of delay iii filing special leave petitions are excepted from
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
C.J.T, v. R. H. PANDY (Ray, C.J.)
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 filin~ special leave petitions. Any appli·
cation for condonation of delay 1n filing petition of appeal is there·
fore included in applications for enlargement or abridgement of time.
TI1is practice of the Chamber Judge hearing applications for con·
donation of delay in filing petitions of appeal within the time appointed
by the Rules of this Coun has been followed ever since 1966. Cursus
curiae est lex curiae. The practice of the Coun 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 ciVer its own process is unlimited; it is a power
incid.ent to all C.ourts". See Cocker v. Tempest.('1)
We are therefore of opinion that applications for condonation rl.
delay in filing petitions of appeal are within the Chamber business
under Order Vl Rule 2(14).
V.P.S.
(1) 7 M& W 502.
"