That order was passed by learned Single Judge under Order VI rule 2 14 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
That application was dismissed by one of us on 11.1 I. 86.
The application had been filed for the companydonation 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 ground that the application for companydonation 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.
Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General, A.K. Ganguli, P. Singh, R.P. Srivastava and P. Parmeswaran for the Petitioner.
3005, 1599, 2194, 2067, 158 2148 50, 2902/86, 2533/86,223/88.
25279, 13195, 19336, 18600, 1563, 15031 33, 19552, 20695/1986.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Review Petition Nos.
IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
IN CIVIL MISC.
PETITION NOS.
557 of 1987, the appli cation was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Ramamurthy, B. Parthasarthi, V.J. Francis, C.S Vai dyanathan, S.R. Setia, Harish N. Salve, Ravinder Narain, D .N. Misra, S. Padmanabha Mahale, Mrs. Leelawati, K.K. Gupta V. Balachandran and Uma Dutta for the Respondents.
It appears that an application for companydonation of delay came before a learned Single Judge and in the circumstances mentioned in the Review Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKIIARJI, J. In these matters, the question that arises for companysideration is, whether a learned Single Judge sitting in Chambers is companypetent to dismiss applica tion for companydonation of delay in statutory appeals under Order XX A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, regarding appeal under section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as well as under Order XX B re garding appeals under Section 130 E of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35 L of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944.
