9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMIX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. 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 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. In our considered opinion, while deciding a case of this nature, we have to also bear in mind one maxim of equity, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Ap J Chambers, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv., Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv., Mr. Deepak Kumar Rawat, Adv., Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Adv. JUDGMENT 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. 2. I.A. Nos. 9 and 10-these two applications are filed by the applicants/Respondent Nos. 1-4.-Libra Buildtech Private Ltd. and 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 busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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. 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 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 nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 v. 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 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
