The main legal point established in the judgment is that the specific provision of Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act allows for the refund of stamp duty in cases where the contract becomes void as a result of its cancellation by order of the Court, and the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit applies.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission.

This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Khand-peeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam 2005 has been filed questioning the correctness of the order passed by the writ Court on 07.11.2020 in WP No. 19632/2014 whereby the writ Court relying upon a judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2015) 16 SCC 31: (2015 AIR SCW 6925) (Committee GFEL v. Libra Buildtech Private Ltd. and others) allowed the petition in regard to refund of amount of stamp duty to the extent of relief claimed in the petition under Clause 7(iii) and (iv).

2. The facts, leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that the respondent No. 1 (petitioner before the writ Court) filed a writ petition seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the appellant to refund the amount of stamp duty as well as registration charges because the said firm participated in the auction conducted by the respondent No. 2 and purchased the property after paying the consideration amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- over which an amount of Rs. 16,69,600/- was paid as a stamp duty and registration charges and the sale certificate was executed and issued by the Bank.

3. The defaulter-borrower upon repayment of entire dues got the sale set aside in an appeal preferred under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the auction proceedings. The said appeal was registered as MA No. 85/2020. The Debt Recovery Tribunal finally set aside the auction proceedings as it found some irregularity therein and directed the Bank to recall the sale certificate already issued in the name of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner was not the party in the appeal and no request for refund of stamp duty and registration charges was made and, therefore, no order in that regard was passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner thereafter approached the Bank asking refund of the stamp duty and registration charges, but, despite assurance given by the Bank, no order was passed, though they made request to the Tribunal by issuing letter to pass an order in that regard so that the petitioner could be refunded back the amount of stamp duty and the registration charges.

5. A review petition i.e. RA No. 02/2011 was filed by the Bank before the Tribunal, but the said review petition was also disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2012 reducing the rate of interest from 18 percent to 12 percent in favour of the auction purchaser, but, no order regarding refund of stamp duty was passed. Against the order passed in review petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, but, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2013.

6. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (For short 'Stamp Act') before the District Registrar-cum-Collector (Stamp). But no order was passed on the said application. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, which was registered as WP No. 19632/2014, which was finally allowed vide order dated 07.11.2020, which is impugned in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has criticized the order passed by the writ Court mainly on the ground that under the circumstances existing in the present case, it is the respondent-Bank, which has committed the irregularity and illegalities in the auction and ultimately the said auction was set aside on the basis of the said irregularity and, therefore, it is the Bank, which can be held responsible and should pay the stamp duty and registration charges whatever incurred by the auction purchaser in the alleged sale.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that mere are cases of Supreme Court in which the erring party was held responsible and was directed to compensate the auction purchaser in case the sale is set aside. He has relied upon the decisions reported in (2013) 15