https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40107 Under the Supreme Court Rules, applications for condonation of delay in statutory appeals fell within chamber business and could validly be dismissed by a single judge sitting in chambers. The Court relied on prior construction of the same rule and settled practice to uphold that procedural arrangement. It also held that treating condonation applications in statutory appeals differently from those in special leave petitions did not violate Article 14, because Article 136 matters form a distinct class by reason of the Court's special and residuary jurisdiction. The chamber practice was upheld, reference to a larger Bench was declined, and the review petitions were dismissed. en-us Fri, 24 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40107 Under the Supreme Court Rules, applications for condonation of delay in statutory appeals fell within chamber business and could validly be dismissed by a single judge sitting in chambers. The Court relied on prior construction of the same rule and settled practice to uphold that procedural arrangement. It also held that treating condonation applications in statutory appeals differently from those in special leave petitions did not violate Article 14, because Article 136 matters form a distinct class by reason of the Court's special and residuary jurisdiction. The chamber practice was upheld, reference to a larger Bench was declined, and the review petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40107