SAMARIAS TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. versus S. SAMUEL & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 09-11-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
24 
SAMARIAS TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. 
v. 
S. SAMUEL & ORS. 
Norember 9, 1984 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN & E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.) 
Practice and Procedure-Oral application made to a Judge in Chambers-
No. written application fifed-Orders passed-/lleither facts nor questio1t of law 
reasons given in the order-Propriety of. 
A sillill/! in Chambers-When should be held. 
A single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, on an oral application made 
in his chamber on behalf of a person professing to be respondent No. l, and on 
giving an oral undertaking to make a written application within 4 days, issued 
"'an interim order directing maintenance of status quo in regard to an auction of 
a liquor shop held in favour of the appellant. The said order did not make any 
attempt to indicate even briefly the facts, the question of law, if any. raised 
before the Judge and the reasons which prompted him to make such an interjrn 
order. On receiving the information about the said order, the appellant contac .. 
ted the High Court and got the information that the subsequent writ petition 
filed by respondent No. 1 under Article 226 would be taken up for orders at 
2. 30 p.m. on 3. 4. 1984. While the represent<t;tives of the appellant and their 
advocate were wailing in the court, they came to know that the matter had been 
mentioned in the cha1nber of the learned Judge who had earlier granted stay and 
that the order of statues quo had been extended until further orders. The 
appellant told the learned Single Judge that they were waiting in the Court and 
were not informed that the matter was going to be mentioned in his chamber 
and in view of this they requested the learned Judge to reconsider his order. 
But, t.1ie Judge declined to do so. Thereupon the appellant filed a Writ Appeal. 
The Writ Petitioa filed by respondent No. 1 alongwith the Writ Appeal of the 
appellant were heard together by a Division Bench which set aside the auction 
and directed that a fresh auction be held on 19th April 1984. Aggrieved by the 
said order, the appeHant has filed the present appeal. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, 
HELD .: There is hardly any justification for the entertainment of an 
oral application atid the issuance of an interim order with no recl>id whatever 
of what was sµbmitted ~O the court of the reasons for the order rl!ade·by the 
court. "'lo petiflit a procedure .. by \\fhich oral applications may be made and 
interim.·.6rders : obtained without any petition in writing, without any affidavit 
having ~en sv.:or.n ~ · eS p~iina facie ,pr;oof (If allegations and without any 
reg,rd being kept.be(Ore th~· court may lead to very serious abuse •f the 1't'0cess 
ll 
of the court. Therefore, this Court expresses its disapprobation and forbids tho 
.. 
' 
' 
SAMAIUAS CO. v. S. SAMUEL 
2S 
practice of entertaining oral applications by any court in matters of consequence 
A 
without any record before it. 
[29E-G] 
(2) This Court does not mean to suggest that oral application may never 
be made. Often during the course of the hearing of a case it becomes necessary 
to make applications of a formal oature and such application are permitted by 
the Presiding Judge. But in all such cases the court is already seised of the 
principal matter or dispute and there is a record pertaining to it before the 
court. Again, this Court does not mean to suggest that other urgent oral appli· 
cations may never be made. If urgent interim orders are imperative, at least 
skeletal applications setting out the bare facts and the questions invoh·ed should 
be insisted upon. A detailed application could be pennitted to be filed later. 
If the matter is so urgent as not even to brook any insistence upon a written 
application, the judge should at least take the trouble and the care to record in 
his order the facts mentioned to him and the submissions made to him. It is 
essential that there be a contemporaneous record. Otherwise the court ceases 
to be a court of record. [29G-H; 30A-BJ 
(3) A sitting in chambers could be held when both sides are represented 
and the sittings are held openly so that members of the public, if they desire to 
c 
attend, may have access even in the chamber. To grant interim orders on oral 
O 
applications in chambers when the judge is otherwise sitting in ope11 court for 
other matters would seriously reflect on the fairness of the procedure adopted 
by the courts and may have the unpleasant effect of undermining publi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.