Vested right of appeal protected from retrospective court-fee amendment in pending appeals.

The right of appeal was treated as a substantive vested right arising when the suit was instituted, so a later amendment to court-fee law could not retrospectively burden pending appeals unless such intent was expressed clearly or by necessary implication. The shift to ad valorem court fees was held to affect the appeal right itself, not merely procedural machinery, and therefore could not apply to appeals arising from suits filed before the amendment date. The refund orders were accordingly upheld as correct in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether amendments to the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applied by the Court Fees (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1954, could retrospectively affect the court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal arising from a suit instituted before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The right of appeal was treated as a substantive and vested right arising on the date of institution of the suit, and not as a mere matter of procedure. An amendment that impairs that right or makes its exercise more onerous by imposing a stricter condition cannot operate retrospectively unless the legislature has expressed that intention expressly or by necessary intendment. The alteration in the court-fee regime, including the shift to ad valorem fees, was held to affect the right of appeal itself in pending matters originating before the relevant date, and not merely the machinery of procedure. The authorities distinguishing a new procedural requirement from an existing vested right of appeal were held not to govern the case.

Conclusion: The amended court-fee provisions did not apply retrospectively to the appeals arising from suits instituted before the relevant date, and the refund orders were correct in law.

---