9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective application of amendments to the Court Fees Act. 2. Substantive right of appeal and its impairment by procedural changes. 3. Refund of excess court fees paid under a mistaken interpretation of the law. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Retrospective Application of Amendments to the Court Fees Act The core issue was whether the amendments made by the Court Fees (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1954, which came into force on April 1, 1954, applied retrospectively to suits filed before this date. The appellants argued that the court fees payable on the memoranda of appeal should be according to the law in force at the date of filing of the suits, which was before the relevant date, rather than the law in force at the date of filing the memoranda of appeal, which was after the relevant date. The High Court, in its judgment, allowed the applications for refund of excess court fees, stating that the amendments did not have retrospective effect as there was no provision, express or by necessary intendment, for giving retrospective effect to the amendments. 2. Substantive Right of Appeal and Its Impairment by Procedural Changes The High Court held that a right of appeal is a substantive right that vests in a litigant at the date of the filing of the suit and cannot be taken away unless the legislature expressly or by necessary intendment says so. The court emphasized that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and any impairment of this right by imposing a more stringent or onerous condition is not merely a procedural change but affects the substantive right itself. The Supreme Court upheld this view, referring to its earlier decisions in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, and Garikapatti Veerayya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury, which established that the impairment of the right of appeal by imposing a more onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only and such an enactment is not retrospective unless explicitly stated. 3. Refund of Excess Court Fees Paid Under a Mistaken Interpretation of the Law The appellants, Arati Cotton Mills Ltd. and Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd., had paid excess court fees on their memoranda of appeal based on the amended law, which they argued was not applicable to their cases as their suits were filed before the relevant date. They applied for a refund of the excess court fees, claiming that the payment was made under a bona fide mistake and/or inadvertence and/or oversight. The High Court allowed the applications for refund, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the High Court was correct in its view that the amendments did not have retrospective effect and the orders of refund of excess court fees were correct in law. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming that the amendments to the Court Fees Act did not have retrospective effect and that the right of appeal is a substantive right that cannot be impaired by procedural changes unless explicitly stated by the legislature. The orders for the refund of excess court fees were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
