LexTHE COMMITTEE-GFIL versus LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015) 11S.C.R.420 THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS. I.A. Nos. 7-8 & 9-10 OF 2015 IN (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.23886-23887 of 2012) SEPTEMBE.R 30, 2015 C [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR · SAPRE, JJ.] Stamp Act, 1899 - ss. 49(d)(2) and 50 - Property in question (which belonged to the company under liquidation) D taken over by a Committee constituted by Supreme Court- Auction sale of the property by the Committee - Sale confirmed in favour of the highest bidders/applicants - The case transferred by Supreme Court to High Court for further action -As per the direction of High Court bidders/applicants · E deposited the stamp papers with the Committee for execution of sale deed - Sale deeds though executed, possession of the property could not be handed-over to the bidders - The Committee directed by High Court to refund the amount deposited by the bidders - Direction challenged by the F Committee - Supreme Court confirmed the direction of High Court to refund the entire amount deposited towards sale consideration and gave liberty to the applicants to approach the State Government for refund of stamp duty-Applicants' application for refund of stamp duty rejected by the competent G authority on the ground of limitation - Present applications challenging the order denying refund of stamp duty- Held: The claim for refund of stamp duty cannot be said to be time- barred because the sale transaction being court monitored H transaction, the party could not have taken any steps 420 THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRABUILDTECH PRIVATE 421 LTD.&ORS. regarding the claim prior to permission of the court - Thus A the right to claim the refund accrued only after the order of Supreme Court - On the contract of sale having become void as a result of its cancellation by Supreme Court, in the light of the principle contained in s. 65 of the Contract Act, the applicants are entitled to restoration of all such benefits B from the State which it took from the contract of sale- On the basis of 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 rights, also the bona fide claim for C refund cannot be denied- Even if the claim was time-barred, the application for refund, could have been entertained by the State uls. 49(d)(2) r/w. s. 50(3)- Therefore, the applicants are entitled to refund of the entire stamp duty- Limitation - Equity- Contract Act, 1872 - s. 65. Limitation - Expiry of period of limitation - Effect of - Held: Expiry of limitation period may bar the remedy, but not the right. D Equity - Principles of equity that a person cannot be E penalized for no fault of his and the act of the court would cause no prejudice to any of his rights - Applicability of - Discussed. Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation which F advances the cause of justice and is based on the principle of equity, should be preferred. Maxim - 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit'-Applicability of - Discussed. Allowing the applications, the Court HELD: 1. The applicants are entitled to claim the refund of entire stamp duty amount of Rs.6.22 crores G H 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A from the State Exchequer. which they spent for execution of sale deeds in their favour in relation to the properties in question. Firstly because the transaction originally intended between the parties, i.e., sale of properties in question by GFIL-Committee to the applicants was not B accomplished and failed due to reasons beyond the control of the parties. Secondly, because 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 C 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 0 amount from the State Government by order dated 26.09.2012. Thirdly, because 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, because this being a court monitored transaction, no E party was in a position to take any steps in the matter without the permission of the Court. Fifthly, because the applicants throughout performed thei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.