LexDHARMENDRA SHARMA versus M. ARUNMOZHI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 24 : 2026 INSC 10 Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr. (Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 703-704 of 2025 In Civil Appeal No(s). 2809-2810 of 2024) 05 January 2026 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to contempt petitions by the appellant-petitioner, alleging, inter alia, that respondent no. 1 willfully failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, (2025) 1 SCC 422, whereby the respondent was called to refund an amount of Rs. 3,99,100/- , being the cost of the non-judicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner. Headnotes† Contempt of court – Contempt petitions – Contempt petitions by the appellant-petitioner alleging, that respondent no. 1 willfully failed to refund an amount of Rs. 3,99,100/- , being the cost of the non-judicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner, as directed by this Court in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority (2025) 1 SCC 422: Held: Respondent no. 2-State, conceded that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for refund was founded on r.218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 (as amended), which proscribes refund of physical non-judicial stamp papers after the expiry of a period of eight years, was taken on a bona fide interpretation of the said provision, and tendered an unconditional apology, and stated that respondent no. 2 remains duty-bound to implement the directions issued by this Court in the interest of justice – Thus, issuance of direction simpliciter to respondent no. 2 to refund a sum of Rs. 3,99,100/- to the petitioner, upon return of the non-judicial stamp papers received by him from respondent no. 1, within the stipulated period – U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942. [Paras 7, 8] * Author [2026] 1 S.C.R. 25 Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr. Case Law Cited Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority [2024] 9 SCR 97 : (2025) 1 SCC 422 – referred to. List of Acts U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942. List of Keywords Contempt petitions; Willful non-compliance; Refund of the cost of non-judicial stamp papers. Case Arising From INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 703- 704 of 2025 In Civil Appeal No(s). 2809-2810 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2024 of the Supreme Court of India at Delhi in AC Nos. 2810 and 2809 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner(s): Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Om Prakash, Vikas Singh Jangra. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Shaurya Sahay, Aman Jaiswal, Ms. Palak Mathur. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Heard Shri Vipin Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present contempt petitions have been instituted by the appellant in the civil appeals already disposed of, alleging, inter alia, that respondent no. 1 has willfully failed to comply with the directions 26 [2026] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports issued by this Court in its judgment dated 6th September, 2024, rendered in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 422. The relevant portion of the judgment germane to the controversy at hand is reproduced hereinbelow: - “34. In light of the aforementioned observations and taking into account the shortcomings on the part of both the appellant and ADA, this Court deems it appropriate to provide a compensation of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) apart from what was awarded by NCDRC. Therefore, apart from the refund of the entire amount deposited by the appellant @ 9% interest per annum from 11-7-2020 till the date of refund, ADA is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) to the appellant. The entire amount should be rendered to the appellant within three months of this order. We also order ADA to return the non-judicial stamp worth Rs 3,99,100 back to the appellant. . . . 35. Furthermore, we refrain from imposing any exemplary costs on either party, recognising that both have contributed to the situation at hand. It is also to be noted that ADA, being a civic body tasked with serving the public and operating on a non-profit basis, should not be unduly penalised in a manner that could impede its functioning. 36. Civil Appeals Nos. 2809-10 of 2024 are disposed of accordingly.” 3. The petitioner submits that although respondent no. 1 has co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.