https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289075 The High Court did not have the authority to create a rule that deprived litigants of their right to appeal to the Supreme Court retrospectively. Vested rights, like the right to appeal, cannot be taken away without clear legislative intent. The rule allowing single judges to hear certain second appeals could not apply to cases instituted before May 8, 1951, to preserve existing rights. The judgment emphasized the distinction between procedural and substantive rights, protecting vested rights under the Civil Procedure Code. en-us Fri, 19 Oct 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:47:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289075 The High Court did not have the authority to create a rule that deprived litigants of their right to appeal to the Supreme Court retrospectively. Vested rights, like the right to appeal, cannot be taken away without clear legislative intent. The rule allowing single judges to hear certain second appeals could not apply to cases instituted before May 8, 1951, to preserve existing rights. The judgment emphasized the distinction between procedural and substantive rights, protecting vested rights under the Civil Procedure Code. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Oct 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289075