TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies court-fees Act not retroactive on appeals from pre-amendment suits.</h1> <h3>Sawaldas Madhavdas Versus Arati Cotton Mills</h3> Sawaldas Madhavdas Versus Arati Cotton Mills - AIR 1955 Bom 332, (1955) 57 BOMLR 394 Issues:Refund of court-fees paid on appeals filed on the Original Side of the Court under Section 151, Civil P. C. due to higher court-fees paid by mistake or inadvertence, and the contention regarding the retrospective effect of the amended Court-fees Act of 1-4-1954 on appeals arising from suits filed before that date.Analysis:The applicants sought a refund of court-fees paid on appeals filed on the Original Side of the High Court under Section 151, Civil P. C. They claimed that the higher court-fees were paid mistakenly and that they were not legally liable to pay the increased fees. The appeals in question were by the defendants, and the court-fees paid were as per the amendment to the Court-fees Act effective from 1-4-1954, changing the fee structure to 'ad valorem' fees instead of a fixed fee. The applicants argued that at the time of filing the suits, the court-fee payable was a fixed amount, and the amendment imposing higher fees impaired their vested right of appeal. They contended that the amended Act should not have retrospective effect, applying only to appeals from suits filed after 1-4-1954.An identical issue had been considered previously in a Civil Reference on the Appellate Side of the Court. The question revolved around whether the amended Court-fees Act should have retrospective effect and whether the increased fees constituted a burden that affected the right of appeal. The Court, after hearing arguments from the Advocate General, upheld the decision from the previous reference. The Advocate General cited several judgments, including one from the High Court in 1886 and another from the Madras High Court, to support the position that the court-fees payable should be determined as per the law in force at the time of filing the appeal, not the original suit.The Court distinguished between an appeal and an application for review, emphasizing that an appeal represents a vested substantive right, while an application for review is an independent proceeding initiated by the litigant. The right of appeal was deemed to vest at the initiation of the suit, regardless of whether the decree was passed after the effective date of the amended Court-fees Act. The Court clarified that the Court-fees payable on a set-off or counterclaim should be based on the law applicable at the time of filing the set-off or counterclaim, treating them as fresh suits.Consequently, the Court allowed the applications under Section 151 and directed the refund of any excess court-fees paid by the appellants over the fees payable when the respective suits were filed. The excess fees were to be refunded with a stipulated timeline, and no costs were awarded for the applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
