Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, S. NATARAJAN AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Madras, Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Standard Motor Products, etc., Respondents.
Review Petn. Nos. 557-564 and 571, 594 of 1987 In Civil Misc Petn. Nos. 25279, 13195, 19136, 18600, 1563, 15031-33, 19552 and 20695 of 1986. In Civil Appeal Nos. 3005, 1599, 2194, 2067, 158, 2148-50, 2902 and 2533 of 1986 and 223 of 1988
Decided on 24-2-1989.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. Ramaswamy, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. A. K. Ganguli, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. P. Singh, Mr. R. P. Srivastava and Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Advocates with him for, Petitioner; Mr. J. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Parthasarthi, Mr. V. J. Francis, Mr. C. S.Vaidyanathan, Mr. S. R. Setia, Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. Ravinder Narain, Mr. D. N. Misra, Mr. S. Padmanabha Mahale, Mrs. Leelawati, Mr. K. K. Gupta, Mr. V. Balachandran and Mr. Uma Dutta, Advocates with him for, Respondents.
Constitution of India – 1950 – Article 14 and 136 – Limitation Act – Section 5 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Section 109 - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Section 55 - Customs Act, 1962 – Section 130E - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 – Section 35L - Income-tax Act – Section 30(2),31,33 and 66(4) - Condonation of delay - In these matters question that arises for consideration is, whether a learned single Judge sitting in Chambers is competent to dismiss application for condonation of delay in statutory appeals, regarding appeal - It appears that an application for condonation of delay came before a learned single Judge and in circumstances mentioned in Review Petition application was dismissed by learned single Judge - That application was dismissed by one of us - That order was passed by learned single Judge under O. VI, R. 2(14) of SC Rules, 1966 - Application had been filed for the condonation of delay along with Statutory Appeal against Judgment / Order of Customs, Excises and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal - Revenue being Collector of Central Excise, in this case filed a review petition on around that application for condonation of delay made in Statutory Appeals arising out of final orders of Tribunal under several Acts should be heard by a bench of at least two Judges - Matter was posted before this bench for consideration whether learned single Judge had jurisdiction to dismiss such application for condonation of delay or not – Held, In facts and circumstances of case, in light of provisions of said Rules as noticed before, court cannot say that court are satisfied that earlier decision of this Court in C.I.T., Bombay City v. R. H Pandit (AIR 1974 SC 2269) (supra) was clearly erroneous - In that view of matter, it is no necessary to refer this question to a large bench or to disturb settled practice of this Court - These are and should legitimately be treated separately other than all other applications including applications under statutory Appeals - Practice of one learned single Judge disposing of in Chambers applications for condonation of delay in statutory appeals is just, fair and reasonable - Every Court has the right to arrange its own fairs - Court find no reason either to upset that practice or to cast doubt on propriety of I Such practice - In this connection, reference may be made to decision of this Court in P. N. Eswara Iyer v Registrar, SC of India. (1980) 2 SCJ 119 where this Court upheld the circulation system for disposal of Review Petitions and held that early hearing was the essential requirement if a review petition is found devoid of substance - Such different treatment in respect of different applications has always been within the domain of Courts arrangement of business - These do not involve any violation of fundamental right - In the premises, court do not find any reason to interfere with order passed - Court hold that a learned sing Judge in Chambers is and was always competent to dismiss all applications for condonation of delay in statutory appeals - Court find nothing repugnant in same and no substance in contention that otherwise the same would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Review Petitions fail and are dismissed - Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :— In these matters, the question that arises for consideration is, whether a learned single Judge sitting in Chambers is competent to dismiss application for condonation of delay in statutory appeals under O. XX-A of the SC Rules, 1966, regarding appeal under S. 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as well as under O. XX-B regarding appeals under S. 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 and S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It appears that an application for condonation of delay came before a learned single Judge and in the circumstances mentioned in the Review Petition No. 557 of 1987, the application was dismissed by the learned single Judge. That application was dismissed by one of us on 11-11-86. That order was passed by learned single Judge under O. VI, R. 2(14) of the SC Rules, 1966. The application had been filed for the condonation of delay along with the Statutory Appeal against the Judgment / Order of the Customs, Excises and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. The revenue being the Collector of Central Excise, Madras in this case filed a review petition on the around that the application for condonation of delay made in Statutory Appeals arising out of final orders of the Tribunal under several Acts should be heard by a bench of at least two Judges. The matter was posted before this bench for consideration whether the learned single Judge had jurisdiction to dismiss such application for condonation of delay or not.
2. In order to decide this question, it is necessary to have a conspectus of the relevant rules. In the SC Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as amended in 1983, under O. XX-B, of the said rules, provision has been made for appeals under Cl. (b) of S. 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 and under S. 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. According to R. 1 thereof, the petition of appeal shall, subject to the provisions of Ss. 4. 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 be presented within 60 days from the date of the order sought to be appealed against or within 60 days from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the Appellant, whichever is later. The time required for obtaining a copy of the order should be excluded. There is, however, no provision providing for limitation in the concerned Statutes.
3. According to R. 2 of O.XX-B.Rr. 1 to 7 of O. XX-A of the Rules relating to appeals under S. 51 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 shall with necessary modifications and adaptations, apply to appeals under that Order.
R. 3 of O. XX-A provides as under :
"After the appeal is registered, it shall be put up for hearing ex parte before the Court which may either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties, or may make such orders as the circumstances of the case may require".
4. According to this provision, it appears that all such statutory appeals have to be placed before a Court for ex parte admission.
5. According to S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 :
"Any appeal or any application may be admitted after a prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making an application within such a period."
Some grounds, according to the appellant, had been made for condonation of delay. Apparently, in the facts of the case, the learned single Judge did not find any merit in those grounds and refused to condone the dalay. Consequently, it was contended that the effect of the refusal of condonation of delay was dismissal of the appeal following as a result thereof. The question is, can the learned single Judge do it? The learned single Judge has done it by virtue of R. 2(14) of O. VI of the said Rules. O. VI deals with the Business in Chambers. O. VI, R. 1 provides that the powers of the Court in relation to the matters enumerated thereunder would be exercised by the Regist
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
