DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANR versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1178 · Decided: 18-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1178 : 2025 INSC 262
Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. 
v. 
Government of NCT & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2025)
18 February 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellants 
would be entitled to claim interest on delayed stamp duty refund, 
in the absence of a provision in the statute to that effect.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Refund of Stamp 
Duty – Interest to be paid along with the principal:
Held: The Appellants approached the High Court under Article 
226 of the Constitution following their request for refund of the 
stamp duty as the e-stamp paper purchased by the Appellants 
was misplaced – The Single Judge of the High Court passed an 
order directing the Respondents to refund Rs. 28,10,000/- being the 
principal amount of the stamp duty – The Writ Petition was partly 
allowed as only the principal amount was ordered to be refunded 
whereas the interest on the same was declined – The Appellants 
herein being dissatisfied with non-grant of interest on the sum 
of Rs. 28,10,000/- preferred Letters Patent Appeal – The appeal 
Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal – The Civil Appeal allowed 
and the Respondents directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,35,968/-  
(Rs. Four Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight 
Only) towards interest within a period of two months from the date 
of the order without fail. [Paras 6, 7, 10, 31]
Payment of Interest – Person deprived of money entitled to 
be compensated for deprivation:
Held: The subject General Mandamus is a salutary advancement 
of the law, calculated to insulate and protect a citizen from unfair 
treatment by the State – Referring to Authorised Officer Karnataka 
Bank v. M/s R.M.S. Granites Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 
12294 of 2024, held that when a person is deprived of the use of 
his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be 
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
1179
Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.
compensated for the deprivation which may be called interest or 
compensation – Interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of 
money in general terms which has returned or compensation for 
the use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to 
other – Referring to Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government 
of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508, it was noted that a 
person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled 
has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any 
name – Reference being made to Riches v. Westminister Bank 
Ltd., 1947 (1) ALL ER 469 wherein it has been held that interest 
is a payment, which becomes due because the creditor has not 
had his money at the due date – It may be recorded either as 
representing the profit he might have made if he had had the use 
of the money, or, conversely, the loss he suffered because he had 
not that use. [Paras 15, 17, 20, 21]
Doctrine of restitution – Interest necessary corollary of doctrine 
of restitution – Discussed:
Held: If doctrine of restitution is attracted, interest should follow – 
Restitution in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the 
modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order what has been 
lost to him in execution of decree or order of the Court or in direct 
consequence of a decree or order – The term “restitution” is used 
in three senses, firstly, return or restoration of some specific thing to 
its rightful owner or status, secondly, the compensation for benefits 
derived from wrong done to another and, thirdly, compensation or 
reparation for the loss caused to another – Principles of restitution 
discussed in O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai, 
JT 2007 (10) SC 76 referred.  [Paras 25, 27]
Principle of compensation – When the collection is illegal, the 
amount so collected to be refunded with interest – Discussed:
Held: Reference being made to Union of India through Director of 
Income Tax v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335, wherein it 
was held that when the collection is illegal, the Revenue is obliged 
to refund such amount with interest as money so deposited was 
retained and enjoyed by it – No discrimination can be shown between 
the assessee and Revenue in paying interest on the refund of tax – 
Money received and retained without right, carries with it the right to 
interest – Obligation to refund money received and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.