1 of Sch.
The change was effected inter alia by deleting s. 4 and amending s. 6 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and Art.
On November 18, 1954, an application was made under s. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, by the Arati Cotton Mills Ltd., for refund of excess companyrt fees paid on the memorandum of appeal.
3,193 12 0 on the said memorandum.
Messrs. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. then applied for refund of the excess companyrt fees paid on a ground similar to that mentioned earlier in companynexion with the application of the Arati Cotton Mills Ltd. Both the applications were heard together after issue of numberice to the Advocate General, Bombay, who appeared for the State of Bombay and opposed the applications.
This Act was amended on November 25, 1949, and s. 22 1 as amended provided that numberappeal should be admitted by the said authority unless such appeal was accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax in respect of which the appeal had 1 1053 S.C.R. 987.
The appellants say that they were number legally bound to pay anything more than the said sum of Rs.
On or about October 5, 1954, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and on October 9, 1954, a prayer was made for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
Similarly, on December 17,1953, Messrs. Rasiklal and Company Ltd., brought a suit against Messrs. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. and two other defendants in which a decree was passed on May 11, 1954, for a sum of Rs.
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated November 24, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos.
These two appeals have been preferred on the strength of that certificate.
The State of Bombay then asked for and obtained a certificate in the two cases which were companysolidated to the effect that they were fit for appeal to this Court.
The suit was decreed on July 22, 1954.
been preferred.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
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 facts are simple and may be very shortly stated.
86 and 87 of 1956.
89/X and 96/X of 1954.
R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants.
S. D. Goswami and Gopal Singh, for the respondents.
ad valorem fees became leviable as in the districts.
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.
The Board of Revenue was of opinion that s. 22 1 as amended applied to the case as the assessment was made, and the appeal was preferred, after the amendment came into force and rejcted the appeal.
XII of 1954 , which amendments came in force on April 1, 1954, hereinafter called the relevant date, the companyrt fees payable on two memoranda of appeal were payable 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 relevant date.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. These two companysolidated appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated November 24, 1954, passed on two applications in two appeals disposed of by the said High Court.
3,193 12 0 and the said sum was paid by the appellants under a bona fide mistake and or inadvertence and or oversight.
44,876 12 0 against Messrs. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. The latter filed a memorandum of appeal on July 31, 1954, and paid companyrt fees of Rs.
In the application it was stated The appellants say that the appeal having arisen out of a suit which had been instituted on or about 16th April, 1953, long prior to the companying into force of the Court Fees Bombay Amendment Act, XII of 1954, numbercourt fees were payable on the memorandum of appeal herein except as provided in the Table of fees hereinafter mentioned and that it was due to a mistake that the appellants were called upon to pay the said institution fee amounting to RE.
April 22.
The Arati Cotton Mills Ltd. filed a memorandum of appeal against the said decree on September 4, 1954, and paid companyrt fees of Rs.
