Page 1

[REPORTABLE]  

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA          

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          I.A. Nos. 7-8 & 9-10  OF 2015

 IN

      SLP (C) Nos. 23886-23887/2012

The Committee-GFIL …….Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Libra Buildtech Private Ltd. &  Ors. ……Applicant(s)/       Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. In  the  light  of  the  order  dated  22.01.2015  

already  passed  by  this  Court  in  I.A.  Nos.  7-8  as  

mentioned in the Office  Report  dated 11.02.2015,  

no further order on these IAs. is required.

1

Page 2

2. I.A. Nos. 9 and 10 – these two applications are  

filed by the applicants/respondent Nos.1- 4. - Libra  

Buildtech Private Ltd. & Ors. (hereinafter referred to  

as  ‘the  applicants’) for  direction  by  this  Court  to  

State of Punjab and S.D.M. Dera Bassi to refund the  

full amount of stamp duty to the applicants.   

3. In  order  to  appreciate  the  nature  of  

controversy  involved  and  the  direction  sought  for  

refund  of  the  amount  paid  by  the  applicants  for  

purchase of stamp duty for execution of sale deeds  

in relation to properties in question, it is necessary  

to set out the undisputed factual background of the  

case infra.

4. Golden  Forest  India  Limited  (GFIL),  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  company’)  was  a  

company incorporated under the Companies Act on  

23.02.1987.   On  06.03.1987,  it  was  granted  

certificate  of  commencement  of  business.   This  

2

Page 3

company went into liquidation.    The creditors of  

the company, therefore, filed various claim petitions  

against the company in various courts across the  

country.   This  Court  therefore,  on  an  application  

filed,  transferred all  the  cases  pending in  various  

courts in the country to this Court.   

5. This Court thereafter constituted a Committee,  

namely, GFIL Committee (Petitioner in S.L.P.(C) Nos.  

23886-87 of  2012)  to  take  over  the  assets  of  the  

company  and dispose  of  the  same for  paying  the  

debts of various investors/creditors.   

6. By order dated 05.09.2006 in I.A. Nos.28, 36.  

etc. in T.C.(C) No. 2 of 2004 etc. this Court directed  

the  GFIL  Committee  to  sell  the  properties  of  the  

company.  In compliance of  the above said order,  

the GFIL Committee published an advertisement for  

the  auction  of  certain  properties  of  the  company.  

The  applicants  herein  participated  in  the  auction  

3

Page 4

and submitted their bid to purchase the properties  

advertised for sale.   After auction, the applicants  

herein  were  declared  as  successful  bidders  in  

respect of five properties namely –

(a) Property No.1 (Central Office Building  Village Jharmari,  Tehsil  Dera Bassi,  bid  by  Libra  Buildtech  Pvt.  Ltd.)  for  Rs.34  crores,

(b)  Property  No.2  (Hotel  behind  Central  office at village Jharmari, bid by Saffron  Town  Planners  Pvt.  Ltd.)  for  Rs.16.25  crores.

(c) Property No.3 (Farm lands & Buildings  behind semi-constructed Hotel at  village  Jharmari,  bid  by  Swans  Town Planners  Pvt. Ltd.) for Rs.15.25 crores.

(d) Property No. 7 (10 Residential and 2  Office buildigs at village Jarout by Aries  Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.) for Rs.9.05 crores.

(e)  Property No.9 (Farm Lands at village  Kurali,  bid  by  Flamingo  Propbuild  Pvt.  Ltd.) for Rs.27.25 crores.

As  per  auction  conditions,  the  applicants  

immediately deposited 25% of the bid amount, i.e.,  

4

Page 5

Rs.25.45  crores  with  the  GFIL  Committee  on  

06.12.2006

7. By order dated 14.05.2007, this Court directed  

the  GFIL  Committee  to  invest  the  bid  amount  

received by them in FDRs till the sale in favour of  

the applicants was confirmed.

8. On 29.07.2009, this Court confirmed the sale  

of the properties in favour of the then Director of the  

applicant-Companies and granted them six months’  

time to pay the balance amount of 75% towards the  

sale  price.   However,  the  said  time  to  pay  the  

balance amount was further extended by 14 days  

vide  order  dated  29.01.2010.   This  Court  also  

directed that on deposit of the full amount, the GFIL  

Committee  would  ensure  that  the  properties  in  

question  are  put  in  possession  of  the  purchasers  

(applicants).  

9. As  per  the  direction  of  this  Court,  the  

5

Page 6

applicant-Companies  accordingly  deposited  the  

balance 75% of the bid amount on 10.02.2010 with  

the GFIL Committee, i.e. (Rs.101.80 crores).   

10. Thereafter, this Court transferred the pending  

cases to the Delhi High Court for further action.   

11. In  pursuance  thereof,  the  Division  Bench  of  

the High Court of Delhi by order dated 03.08.2011  

in W.P.(C) No. 1399 of 2010 directed the successful  

bidders/applicants  herein  to  deposit  the  stamp  

papers within two weeks and further directed the  

GFIL Committee to execute the sale deed within a  

period of four weeks thereafter.

12. In terms of the directions issued by the High  

Court, on 02.09.2011, the applicants purchased the  

stamp papers for a sum of Rs.6.22 crores and gave  

the same to the GFIL Committee to execute the sale  

deeds and handover the possession of the properties  

to them.

6

Page 7

13. On  23.12.2011,  sale  deeds  were  accordingly  

executed  in  favour  of  the  applicants  and  even  

registration  was  effected  in  respect  of  two  of  the  

applicants.

14. Despite payment and execution of sale deeds,  

the  GFIL  Committee  did  not  handover  the  

possession of the properties to the applicants and  

hence  this  led  to  filing  of  applications  by  the  

applicants being CMP No. 8029 of 2012 in W.P. No.  

1399 of 2010.   

15. By  order  dated  09.07.2012,  the  High  Court  

directed the GFIL Committee to refund the amount  

deposited by the bidders within one week till they  

are in a position to handover the possession of the  

properties.

16. Against this order, the GFIL Committee filed a  

review petition being R.P. No. 423 of 2012 in C.M.  

No.8029 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No. 1399 of 2010.  By  

7

Page 8

order dated 30.07.2012, the High Court dismissed  

the same.

17. Instead  of  refunding  the  amount,  the  GFIL  

Committee  challenged  both  the  orders  dated  

09.07.2012  and  30.07.2012  by  way  of  

abovementioned special leave petitions i.e. SLP (C)  

Nos.23886-23887 of 2012 before this Court.   

18. This  Court,  by  order  dated  26.09.2012,  

disposed  of  these  Special  Leave  Petitions  with  a  

direction to the GFIL Committee to refund the entire  

amount deposited by the applicants by way of sale  

consideration with interest and also recorded that  

as  far  as  payment  of  stamp  duty  amount  is  

concerned, the applicants would take up the matter  

with the State  Government  for  refund of  the  said  

amount.

19. In  pursuance  of  the  aforesaid  order  of  this  

Court, the GFIL Committee on 06.10.2012 refunded  

8

Page 9

the  entire  sale  consideration  with  interest  to  the  

applicants.  However, while refunding it,  the GFIL  

deducted the TDS on the interest  accrued on the  

amount deposited by the applicants despite the fact  

that the bank had already deducted the same.

20. Aggrieved by  the  TDS deducted  by  the  GFIL  

Committee, the applicants filed I.A. Nos. 3-4 of 2013  

before  this  Court  for  seeking  refund  of  the  said  

amount.

21. By order dated 23.02.2015, this Court directed  

the GFIL Committee as well as the Union of India to  

refund  a  sum  of  Rs.3.4  crores  because  it  was  

noticed that TDS was already deducted twice over.

22. Out of  five applicants,  four of  them, namely,  

Libra Build Tech Pvt.  Ltd., Saffron Town Planners  

Pvt.  Ltd.,  Aries  Buildwell  Pvt.  Ltd.  and  Flamingo  

Propbuild  Pvt.  Ltd.  applied  on  22.10.2012  to  the  

Government of Punjab through S.D.M. Dera Bassi  

9

Page 10

for refund of stamp duty amount.  One applicant,  

namely, Swans Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. applied to  

the  Government  of  Punjab  through  S.D.M.,  Dera  

Bassi  for  refund  of  stamp  duty  amount  on  

02.11.2012.   

23. The S.D.M., Dera Bassi, filed his reply stating  

therein  that  vide  letter  dated  18.07.2013,  he  has  

already  rejected  the  claims  of  the  applicants  for  

refund of stamp duty amount on the ground that  

the  applications  made  by  the  applicants  to  claim  

refund of stamp duty amount were time barred and  

hence  the  claims  for  refund  have  already  been  

consigned to the records as not maintainable.

24. It  is  with  this  background,  as  mentioned  

above, I.A. No.9 and 10 are filed by the applicants  

praying for a direction to the State of Punjab and  

S.D.M. Dera Bassi to refund the entire amount of  

stamp  duty  (Rs.6.22  crores)  to  the  applicants.  

1

Page 11

Notice on IAs. was given to all the concerned parties  

including  State  of  Punjab  and S.D.M.  Dera  Bassi  

who  were  impleaded  as  party  respondent  by  IA  

Nos.7 and 8.  They are served and duly represented.

25. Learned  senior  counsel  Shri  Shaym  Divan  

appearing for the applicants has urged three points  

in support of the prayer made in the applications.  

In  the  first  place,  he  contended  that  when  

admittedly the purpose for which the applicants had  

deposited  the  money-sale  consideration  with  the  

GFIL Committee as per court’s directions has failed  

namely – “purchase of the properties in questions  

by  the  applicants”  and  when  the  Court  as  a  

consequence thereof directed refunding of the entire  

sale  consideration  money  with  interest  to  the  

applicants  by  order  dt.  26.09.2012,  a  fortiori,  the  

applicants are also entitled to claim refund of the  

entire  amount  of  stamp  duty  from  the  State  

1

Page 12

exchequer.  In  other  words,  the  submission of  the  

learned counsel is that when the original purpose  

intended between the parties, namely "sale of the  

properties  to  the  applicants  by  the  GFIL  

Committee"  failed  or  had  become  impossible  to  

perform due to reasons beyond the control  of  the  

vendors  (GFIL  Committee),  the  applicants  are  

entitled to claim the refund of the entire stamp duty  

amount from the State exchequer, because in such  

circumstances, the State has no right to retain the  

stamp  duty  money  consequent  upon  failure  of  

performance  of  contract  in  relation  to  sale  of  

properties by the parties.  

26. In  the  second  place,  learned  counsel  

contended that  direction to  refund the amount  of  

stamp  duty  could  always  be  issued  against  the  

State  Government  by  taking  recourse  to  powers  

contained  in  Sections  49  and  50  of  the  Indian  

1

Page 13

Stamp Act, 1899 (for short called ‘the Act’) read with  

Section  65  of  the  Indian  Contract  Act,  1872.  

Learned counsel  also  placed strong reliance  upon  

the principle of law contained in the maxim actus  

curiae neminem  gravabit - (Act of the court  shall  

prejudice no man) and contended that admittedly,  

there was no fault on the part of the applicants in  

execution of  the entire transaction for  which they  

could  have  been  penalised  for  not  getting  their  

money back and hence keeping in view the principle  

contained in this maxim, the applicants are entitled  

to claim the return of amount of stamp duty.

27. In the third place, learned counsel contended  

that  the  SDM  was  not  right  in  rejecting  the  

applicants’ claim of refund on the ground of it being  

barred by limitation because according to learned  

counsel,  the  right  to  claim refund  of  stamp duty  

amount arose for the first time in applicants’ favour  

1

Page 14

on  26.09.2012  when  this  Court  by  order  dated  

26.09.2012 directed the GFIL Committee to refund  

the entire sale consideration to the applicants due  

to  failure  on the  part  of  the  GFIL  Committee  to  

handover  the  possession  of  the  properties  in  

question to the applicants and in the same order  

granted  liberty  to  the  applicants  to  approach  the  

State  Government  to  claim refund  of  stamp duty  

amount.  Learned  counsel  pointed  out  that  the  

applicants, in compliance to liberty granted, applied  

to the State Government on 22.10.2012/02.11.2012  

which was within the time prescribed in Section 50  

of the Act.  It was, therefore, his submission that  

the  State  Government  (SDM,  Dera  Bassi)  should  

have entertained the applicants’ application treating  

the  same  to  have  been  filed  within  time  and  

accordingly  should  have  granted  refund  of  entire  

stamp  duty  amount  to  the  applicants,  as  was  

1

Page 15

claimed by them in their applications.

28. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents  

supported the impugned order of  rejection passed  

by  the  SDM  and  contended  that  the  applicants’  

claim  was  rightly  rejected  on  the  ground  of  

limitation.

29. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we  

find force in the submissions urged by the learned  

counsel for the applicants.

30. The question which arises for consideration in  

this case is whether the applicants are entitled to  

claim  refund  of  stamp  duty  amount  of  Rs.6.22  

crores.  

31. From the facts set out supra which are part of  

judicial  record of  the cases decided by this  Court  

and the Delhi  High Court,  it  is  clear that  despite  

applicants depositing the entire sale consideration  

1

Page 16

(Rs.101.80 crores)  and Rs (6.22 crores)  for  stamp  

duty  to  purchase  the  properties  in  question,  and  

having performed their part of contract, in letter and  

spirit, the GFIL Committee i.e. seller failed to place  

the applicants in possession of the properties. This  

event  resulted  in  frustrating  the  purpose  as  was  

originally intended between the parties.

32. As  mentioned  supra,  this  Court,  therefore,  

passed an order on 26.09.2012 and cancelled the  

transaction  in  question  and  directed  the  GFIL  

Committee to refund the entire sale  consideration  

with interest to the applicants.  So far as the refund  

of stamp duty amount was concerned, this Court on  

a  statement  made  by  counsel  for  the  applicants  

permitted  the  applicants  to  approach  the  State  

Government  to  claim  refund  from  the  State  

Government.  

33. The order dated 26.9.2012 reads as under:-  

1

Page 17

“Whatever  be  the  reason,  it  has  been  submitted by Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents,  that  they  are  willing  to  have  the  sale  deeds  cancelled and to receive the entire amounts,  which  they had paid  along  with the  interest  accrued thereon. As far as payment of stamp  duty  is  concerned,  it  is  submitted  that  the  respondents would take up the matter with the  Government for refund.  

Having  heard  Mr.  V.G.  Jhanji,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  Committee- GFIL  and  Mr.  Vivek  Tankha,  learned  senior  counsel for the respondents, and in view of the  offer,  which  has  been  accepted  by  the  respondents,  we  dispose  of  the  special  leave  petitions, with a direction to the Committee to  refund to the five concerned respondents the  amounts  deposited  by  them  by  way  of  sale  consideration,  together  with  the  interest  accrued thereon till date, expeditiously, but if  possible, within a week from date. Upon refund  of  the  entire  amount,  the  sale  deeds  shall  stand cancelled and the Committee will not be  bound by the same.”

34. In  compliance  to  the  aforesaid  order,  the  

committee  accordingly  refunded  the  entire  sale  

consideration to the applicants on 06.10.2012. So far  

as  claim for  refund  of  the  stamp duty  amount  was  

concerned,  the applicants filed an application to  the  

State  Government  (S.D.M.,  Dera  Bassi)  on  

1

Page 18

22.10.2012/02.11.2012.

35. In  our  considered  opinion,  keeping  in  view the  

undisputed facts mentioned above, the applicants are  

also entitled to claim the refund of entire stamp duty  

amount of  Rs.6.22 crores from the State Exchequer,  

which they spent for execution of sale deeds in their  

favour in relation to the properties in question. This we  

say for the following reasons.

36. In  the  first  place,  admittedly  the  transaction  

originally  intended  between  the  parties,  i.e.,  sale  of  

properties  in  question  by  GFIL-Committee  to  the  

applicants  was  not  accomplished  and  failed  due  to  

reasons beyond the control  of  the parties.  Secondly,  

this Court after taking into consideration all facts and  

circumstances also came to the conclusion that it was  

not  possible  for  the  parties  to  conclude  the  

transactions  originally  intended and while  cancelling  

the  same  directed  the  seller  (GFIL-Committee)  to  

1

Page 19

refund the entire sale consideration to the applicants  

and simultaneously permitted the applicants to claim  

refund  of  stamp  duty  amount  from  the  State  

Government by order dated 26.09.2012.  Thirdly, as a  

result of the order of this Court, a right to claim refund  

of amount paid towards the stamp duty accrued to the  

applicants.  Fourthly,  this  being  a  court  monitored  

transaction,  no  party  was  in  a  position  to  take  any  

steps  in  the  matter  without  the  permission  of  the  

Court.  Fifthly,  the  applicants  throughout  performed  

their part of the contract and ensured that transaction  

in question is accomplished as was originally intended  

but for the reasons to which they were not responsible,  

the transaction could not be accomplished.  Lastly, the  

applicants in law were entitled to claim restoration of  

all such benefits/advantages from the State once the  

transaction was cancelled by this Court on 26.09.2012  

in the light of the principle contained in Section 65 of  

1

Page 20

the Contract Act which enable the party to a contract  

to seek restoration of  all  such advantage from other  

party  which they took from such contract  when the  

contract is discovered to be void or becomes void.  This  

was a case where contract in question became void as  

a result of its cancellation by order of this Court dated  

26.09.2012  which  entitled  the  applicants  to  seek  

restitution of the money paid to the State for purchase  

of stamp duty.  

37. In our considered opinion, while deciding a case  

of this nature, we have to also bear in mind one maxim  

of equity, which is well settled namely  " actus curiae  

neminem gravabit " meaning  - An Act of the Court  

shall  prejudice  no  man.  In  Broom’s  Legal  Maxims  

10th edition, 1939 at page 73 this maxim is explained  

saying that it is founded upon justice and good sense  

and  afforded  a  safe  and  certain  guide  for  the  

administration of law. This maxim is also explained in  

2

Page 21

the same words in [(Jenk. Cent.118)].  This principle  

is fundamental to any system of justice and applies to  

our jurisprudence. (See: Busching Schmitz Pvt. Ltd.  

vs. P.T. Menghani & Anr.(1977) 2 SCC 835 and Raj  

Kumar Dey & Ors. vs. Tarapada Dey & Ors.(1987) 4  

SCC 398)

38. It  is  thus  a  settled  principle  of  law  based  on  

principle of equity that a person cannot be penalized  

for no fault of his and the act of the court would cause  

no prejudice to any of his right.      

39. In our considered opinion,  the aforesaid maxim  

would apply with full vigour in the facts of this case  

and  if  that  is  the  position  then  applicants,  in  our  

opinion,  are  entitled  to  claim  the  refund  of  entire  

amount  of  stamp  duty  from  the  State  Government  

which  they  spent  in  purchasing  the  stamp duty  for  

execution of sale deed in relation to the properties in  

question.  Indeed  in  the  light  of  six  reasons  set  out  

2

Page 22

supra which, in our considered opinion, in clear terms  

attracts  the  principle  contained  in  the  aforesaid  

maxim, the State has no right to defend the order of  

SDM for retaining the amount of stamp duty paid by  

the  applicants  with  them.  The  applicants’  bona  fide  

genuine  claim  of  refund  cannot  be  denied  on  such  

technical grounds.

40. This case reminds us of the observations made by  

the Chief  Justice M.C. Chagla in a case reported in  

Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India  

(AIR 1954 Bombay 50).  

41. The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style  

of writing observed as under in para 19:  

“…..we have often had occasion to  say that when the State deals with a citizen  it  should  not  ordinarily  reply  on  technicalities,  and if  the State is satisfied  that the case of  the citizen is a just one,  even though legal defences may be open to  it, it must act, as has been said by eminent  Judges, as an honest person.”

42. We  are  in  respectful  agreement  with  the  

2

Page 23

aforementioned  observations,  as  in  our  considered  

opinion these observations apply fully to the case in  

hand  against  the  State  because  except  the  plea  of  

limitation, the State has no case to defend their action.

43. Even apart from what we have held above, when  

we examine the case of the applicants in the light of  

Sections 49 and 50 of the Act, we find that the case of  

the applicants can be brought under Section 49 (d)(2)  

read with Section 50(3) of the Act to enable the State to  

entertain  the  application  made  by  the  applicants  

seeking  refund  of  stamp  duty  amount.  The  

interpretation, which advance the cause of justice and  

is based on the principle of equity, should be preferred.  

We hereby do so.   

44.  As mentioned above, it is not in dispute that this  

Court  on  26.09.2012  cancelled  the  transaction  in  

question,  and hence  by reason of  the  orders of  this  

Court, the stamps used for an instrument executed by  

2

Page 24

the applicants were found unfit thereby defeating the  

purpose originally intended.  This occurred either due  

to some error or mistake therein. Since the execution  

of  sale deeds and its implementation was subject to  

the orders of  the court,  the parties were required to  

apply the court for appropriate orders for every step. It  

is due to this reason, the right to claim the refund of  

the amount of stamp duty arose for the first time in  

applicants’ favour on 26.09.2012. The applicants had  

accordingly  filed  their  applications  within  6  months  

from the date of this order, as provided in Section 50.  

In the light of these facts, the applications should have  

been entertained treating the same to have been filed  

under Section 49 (d)(2) read with Section 50 of the Act  

for  grant  of  refund  of  stamp  duty  amount  claimed  

therein by the applicants.

45. In our considered opinion,  even if  we find that  

applications for claiming refund of stamp duty amount  

2

Page 25

were rightly dismissed by the SDM on the ground of  

limitation prescribed under Section 50 of the Act yet  

keeping in view the settled principle of  law that  the  

expiry of period of limitation prescribed under any law  

may bar the remedy but not the right, the applicants  

are still held entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty  

amount on the basis of the grounds mentioned above.  

In  other  words,  notwithstanding  dismissal  of  the  

applications on the ground of limitation, we are of the  

view  that  the  applicants  are  entitled  to  claim  the  

refund of  stamp duty amount  from the State  in the  

light of the grounds mentioned above.

46. In view of  the foregoing  discussion,  I.A.  Nos.  9  

and 10 filed by the applicants deserve to be allowed  

and  are  accordingly  allowed.  The  State  of  Punjab  

through the SDM, Dera Bassi is directed to refund the  

entire stamp duty amounting to Rs.6.22 crores spent  

by the applicants for purchasing of stamps papers for  

2

Page 26

execution of sale deeds in relation to purchase of the  

properties  in  question.   Let  the  refund of  money as  

directed above be paid to the applicants within four  

weeks from the date of this order.  

                  ………...................................J.    [J. CHELAMESWAR]

                             …...……..................................J.

 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; September 30, 2015.     

2