SAWALDAS MADHAVDAS Vs. ARATI COTTON MILLS LTD
LAWS(BOM)-1954-11-4
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on November 24,1954

SAWALDAS MADHAVDAS Appellant
VERSUS
ARATI COTTON MILLS LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PUNYA NAHAKO V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
EOOSEIN EASAM DADA INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHAMSHUL HASAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1956-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAQSOOD AHMED [LAWS(BOM)-1962-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA SUKLA VS. KRISHNA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2003-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
ARASU RUBBER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER NAGERCOIL RURAL [LAWS(MAD)-1999-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer VS. Cameo Exports [LAWS(MAD)-2005-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
VALSALA VS. SAROJINI PRABHU [LAWS(KER)-2014-5-190] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PROKASH ARORA VS. C.T.O., NETAJI SUBHAS CHARGE [LAWS(STT)-2002-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
TECHNOFAB ENGINEERING LTD VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2015-9-84] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chagla, C.J. - (1.)These are two applications which claim a refund of court-fees paid on appeals filed on the Original Side of this Court and the refund is claimed under Section 151, Civil P. C. on the ground that the higher court-fees were paid by mistake or inadvertence. It is also stated in these applications that the applicants were not liable in law to pay the higher court-fees which in fact they have paid.
(2.)Now, the suits from which these appeals arise were filed before 1-4-1954. In both cases the appeals are by the defendants and the court-fees which the appellants paid were the court-fees regulated by the amendment to the Court-fees Act which came into force on 1-4-1954. As it is well known, on that date the whole system of charging court-fees in the High Court on the Original Side was altered and instead of a fixed fee to be payable on the plaint 'ad valorem' fees became leviable as in the districts. The contention of the applicants is that at the date when the suits were filed the court-fee leviable was a fixed fee. At that date they had a vested right of appeal and that vested right has been impaired by a higher burden being thrown upon them tor preferring an appeal to this Court. It is urged that if they had paid the court-fees on the basis of the fees payable when the suit was filed, the amount would have been much less than what it is today, and therefore in increasing, the burden the right of appeal has been impaired. It is, therefore, urged that the Court-fees Act should not be given a retrospective effect and the amended Court- fees Act should only apply to appeals which are preferred in suits filed after 1-41954.
(3.)An identical question came up for consideration before me in 'Reference under Section 5, Court-fees. Act That question arose on the Appellate Side, but the contentions there raised by the appellants and the manner in which the contentions were sought to be resisted are the same as the contentions raised here by the applicants and the manner in which those contentions have been sought to be resisted by the Advocate-General on behalf of the State. In that case a partition suit was filed in the district and at that time a certain fixed amount was payable on the plaint in a partition suit. After the decree was passed in the partition suit, the amended Court-fees Act of 1-4-1954, also increased the court-fees payable on a partition suit and when the appellant preferred the appeal here the new Act was in force and therefore the question that arose was whether the appellants were liable to pay increased court-fees on the appeal in accordance with the amendment or they were only liable to pay the court-fees which they would have been liable to pay if the court-fees had been payable under the old law. It will be noticed that the question raised in that Civil Reference and the question raised in these applications is identical. In both cases the question was whether a retrospective effect should be given to the amended Court-fees Act and also whether the additional court-fees constituted a burden upon the appellant which impaired his right of appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.