Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Dr. Poornima Advani and Another – Appellants
Versus
Government of NCT and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2025 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 594 of 2020]
Decided On : 18-02-2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 34 and 144 – Interest on refunded amount – When a person is deprived of use of his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has right to be compensated for deprivation which may be called interest or compensation – Interest is paid for deprivation of use of money in general terms which has returned or compensation for use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to other – If on facts of a case, doctrine of restitution is attracted, interest should follow – Appellants are entitled to have interest. (Paras 17, 20, 25 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Short point that falls for consideration is whether in facts and circumstances of the case, appellants herein are entitled to claim interest on refunded amount which was paid for purchase of e-stamp paper.
Findings of Court:
Respondents directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,35,968/- towards interest within a period of two months from today without fail.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that a person deprived of the use of their money to which they are lawfully entitled has the right to interest or compensation (!) (!) . - It directs refund of stamp duty with interest where the stamp paper was lost/misplaced and the State retained the amount without authority of law, interpreting Article 265 and the Act broadly to permit refunds in such scenarios (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court distinguishes between retention and unjust enrichment, endorsing interest on refunds and applying restitution principles where applicable, including references to Mafatlal and related jurisprudence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER :
1. I.A. No. 4291/2024 for substitution is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 27th September, 2019 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 288 of 2019 by which the appeal filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowing the Writ Petition No. 9014 of 2017 filed by the appellants herein came to be dismissed.
4. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:- The appellants herein were desirous of purchasing an immovable property in New Delhi. For that purpose, they purchased the e-stamp paper dated 06.07.2016 valued at Rs. 28,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Ten Thousand Only). The money for that purpose was paid from the joint bank account of the appellants being husband and wife respectively. The e-stamp paper which came to be purchased was dated 06.07.2016.
5. We borrow the other relevant facts from the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20th August, 2018 more particularly, from paragraph 4.3 therein:
(i) Particulars of the property, which was proposed to be purchased.
(ii) the names of the parties, who intended to execute the sale deed.
(iii) the consideration to be paid for consummating the sale transaction.
(iv) the value of e-stamp paper.
4.4 According to the petitioners, though initially, the intention was to execute the sale deed concerning subject property in July, 2016, since, there was some delay in closing the loan transaction via which the transaction was to be funded, the execution of the sale deed was delayed.
4.5 This delay proved to be fatal, inasmuch as, on 4.8.2016, the petitioners were told by the broker, who had the custody of the e-stamp paper, that the e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016 had been misplaced.
4.6 The petitioners realizing the enormity of the loss, filed a complaint with the Crime Branch, Delhi Police, on that very day i.e. 4.8.2016. As a follow up action, on 06.08.2016, the petitioners got public notices issued in two newspapers, namely, Asian Age (English edition) and Rashtriya Sahara (Hindi edition).
4.7 Since, the petitioners were desirous of taking the sale transaction in respect of subject property forward, they were left with no choice but to purchase a fresh e-stamp paper, which they did, on 6.8.2016.
4.8 This stamp paper bore the No. IN-DL80452882772240. The money for this was also paid out from the joint account of the petitioners, maintained with the State Bank of India.
4.9 Consequent thereto, on 8.8.2016, the petitioners and the vendor i.e. M/s. Scud Finlease Limited executed a sale deed.
5. On 11.8.2016, the petitioners filed an application with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Collector of Stamps, for refund of stamp duty amounting to Rs.28,10,000/- on account of loss of the e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016.
5.1 The prayer made in the application was that the amount be refunded to the petitioners after deducting the usual cancellation charges, if any. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of petitioner No. 2 that the e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016 has been lost and was not traceable despite best efforts.
5.2 Furthermore, an indemnity bond was also executed by petitioner No. 2, whereby he undertook to indemnify the respondents, if the stand taken by him that the e- stamp paper dated 6.7.2016 had been lost, proved to be incorrect and, as a result thereof, any loss/damage, etc. was suffered by them.
5.3 Since no action was taken on the petitioners’ application dated 11.8.2016, the petitioners addressed a letter dated 8.9.2016 to respondent No. 2. In this letter, apart from anything else what was sought to be highlighted by the petitioners were two aspects: first, given the fact that every transaction is made in electronic form, it could be verified almos
Interest on refunded amount – When a person is deprived of use of his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has right to be compensated for deprivation which may be called interest or compen....
The right to claim a refund of stamp duty is governed by statutory provisions, and failure to comply with the prescribed limitation period without sufficient justification precludes the possibility o....
Limitation bars remedy but not right to refund of stamp duty paid under wrong head due to error.
The provisions of Section 54(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, are unconstitutional as they impose an arbitrary limitation on refunds for unused stamp papers, violating Article 14 of the Constitution....
The court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to grant refunds of stamp duty on unexecuted instruments, prioritizing equitable outcomes over procedural strictures.
Refund of stamp duty cannot be declined where applicant has purchased stamp certificate by paying full consideration for bonafide purpose.
Allowance for spoiled stamps – As per tenor of instrument, hence there was no unjust enrichment of State because stamp duty paid to it was as per provisions of Stamp Act. No doubt, Stamp Act provides....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the stamp duty amount under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, despite the initial document being unex....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
