LexSTATE OF BOMBAY versus SUPREME GENERAL FILMS EXCHANGE LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1960 Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Ncmdlal Gandalal HidayatullahJ. 1960 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] the respondent bear his own costs and pay those of the appellant here and throughout. ORDER OF COURT. In accordance with the majority judgment of the Court, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. STATE OF BOMBAY v. SUPREME GENERAL FILMS EXCHANGE LTD. (with connected appeal) (S. K. DAs, A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.) Court Fee-Amendment of statute enabling levy of higher court fee-When retrospective-Suit instituted before amendment, appeal filed thereafter-Court fee on memorandum of appeal-Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), ss. 4, 6, Sch. I, Art. 1-Court Fees (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1954 (Rom. 12 of 1954). In 1954 certain amendments were made in the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applied to Bombay by the Court Fees (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1954, by which the system of charging court fees in the Bombay High Court on the Original Side was altered and instead of a fixed fee payable on the plaint, etc., ad valorem fees became leviable. The amendments came into force on April 1, 1954, but there was no provision, express or by necessary intendment, for giving them retrospective effect. In respect of appeals filed after that date against decrees passed in suits insti- tuted before that date, the question arose as to whether the court fees payable on the memoranda of appeal were according to the law in force at the date of the filing of the suits or according to the law in force at the date of the filing of appeals: Held, that the court fees payable on the memoranda of appeal were according to the law as it stood at the date of the filing of the suits. An impairment of the right of appeal by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only; it impairs or imperils a substantive right and an enactment which does so is not retrospective unless it says" so expressly or by necessary intendment. Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, [1953] S.C.R. 987 and Garikapatti Veerayya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury, [1957] S.C.R. 488, followed. A Reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, (1954) 57 Born. L.R. 180, Amara Eswaramma and others v. Makkam .... r f . - - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 641 Seethamina, A.I.R. 1955 Andhra 221, Arjun: v. Amrita and others, I.LR. [1956) Nag. 296 and Nagendra Nath Bose v. Mon Mohan Singh, (1930) 34 C.W.N. 1009, approved. Mohri Kunwar v. Keshri Chand, l.L.R. [1941] All. 558, distin- guished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 86 and 87 of 1956. Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated Novem- ber 24, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos. 89/X and 96/X of 1954. H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants. S. D. Goswami and Gopal Singh, for the respondents. 1960. April 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. K. DAs, J.-These two consolidated appeals arise out of the juclment and order of the High Court of Bombay elated November 24, 1954, passed on two applications in t1vo appeals disposed of by the said High Court. The facts are similar and the question of law arising therefrom is one and the same, namely, whether in the absence of provisions giving retrospective effect to certain amendments made in the Court Fees Act, 1870, as applied to Bombay by the Court Fees (Bom- bay Amendment) Act, 1954 (Bombay Act No. XII of 1954), which amendments came in force on April 1, 1954, hereinafter called the relevant date, the court fees payable on two memoranda of appeal were pay- able according to the law in force at the date of filing of the suits which was prior to the relevant date, or according to the law in force at the date of the filing of the memoranda of appeal which was after. the rele- vant date. The facts are simple and may be very shortly stated. On April 16, 1953, Messrs. Sawaldas Madhavdas brought a suit against the Arati Cotton Mills Ltd., praying for a decree for rupees two lacs and odd. The suit was decreed on July 22, 1954. The Arati Cotton Mills Ltd. filed a memorandum of appeal against the said decree on September 4, 1954, and paid court fees of Rs. 3,193-12-0 on the said memorandum. On or about October 5, l 954, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and on October 9, 1954, a prayer was made for dismissal o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.