THE COMMITTEE-GFILversusLIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.

                       [2015) 11S.C.R.420


A                    THE COMMITTEE-GFIL
                                 v.
            LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.
                      I.A. Nos. 7-8 & 9-10 OF 2015
B
                                  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.
                                                                 D
      Limitation - Expiry of period of limitation - Effect of -
Held: Expiry of limitation period may bar the remedy, but not
the right.

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

      Maxim - 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit'-Applicability
of - Discussed.
                                                                  G
       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
                                                                  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
  amount from the State Government by order dated
0
  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 their part of the
  contract and ensured that transaction in question is
  accomplished as was originally intended but for the
F reasons to which they were not responsible, the
  transaction could not be accomplished. Lastly, because
  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
G 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. In the present
H case, the contract in question became void as a result
  THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE                423
                 LTD.&ORS.

of its cancellation by order of this Court dated 26.09.2012. A
[Para 35, 36) [434-D-H; 435-D)

      2. The maxim of equity, which is well settled namely
"actus curiae neminem gravabif' meaning -An Act of the
Court shall prejudice no man. It is founded upon justice       B
and good sense and afforded a safe and certain guide
for the administration of law. This principle is
fundamental to any system of justice and applies to the
Indian jurisprudence. It is thus a settled principle of law
based on principle of equity that a person cannot be           C
penalized for no fault of his and the act of the court would
cause no prejudice to any of his right. The aforesaid
maxim would apply with full vigour in the facts of the
present case and therefore, the applicants are entitled
to claim the refund of entire amount of stamp duty from        D
the State Government which they spent in purchasing
the stamp duty for execution of sale deed in relation to
the properties in question. The applicants' bona fide
genuine claim of refund cannot be denied on technical
grounds such as limitation. [Paras 37, 38 and 39) [435-        E
H; 436-A-C]

     Busching Schmitz Pvt. Ltd. vs. PT. Menghani &
     Anr. 1977 (3) SCR 312: (1977) 2 sec 835; Raj
     Kumar Dey & Ors. vs. Tarapada Dey & Ors. 1988             F
     (1) SCR 118: (1987) 4 sec 398 - relied on.

     Firm Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India
     AIR 1954 Bombay 50 - approved.
                                                               G
     Broom's Leal Maxims 10'h Edition, 1939 p.73;
     Jenk. Cent. 118 - referred to.

    3. Even when the case of the applicants is
examined in the light of Sections 49 and 50 of the Stamp H
424       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A Act, the case of the applicants can be brought u/s.49(d)(2)
  r/w. s. 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
B equity, should be preferred. [Para 43] [437-A-B]
         4. 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
 c an instrument executed by the applicants were found
   unfit thereby defeating the purpose originally intended.
   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 qrders for
 D 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 s.50. In the
 E light of these facts, the applications should have been
   entertained treating the same to have been filed u/
   s.49(d)(2) r/w. s.50 of the Act for grant of refund of stamp
   duty amount claimed therein by the applicants. [Para 44]
   [437-C-F]
 F
        5. Even if it is found that the applications for
  claiming refund of stamp duty amount were rightly
  dismissed by the SOM on the ground of limitation
  prescribed u/s.50 of the Act yet keeping in view the
G 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. [Para 45] [437-G-H;
H 438-A]
 THE COMMITIEE-GFIL v. LIBRABUILDTECH PRIVATE                 425
                LTD.&ORS.

     6. The State through the SOM is directed to refund A
the entire stamp duty amounting to Rs.6.22 crores spent
by the applicants for purchasing of stamps papers for
execution of sale deeds in relation to purchase of the
properties in question. [Para 46] [438-C]
                                                        B
                     Case Law Referece

1977 (3) SCR 312               relied on.      Para 37

1988 (1) SCR 118               relied on.      Para 37
                                                              c
AIR 1954 Bombay 50             approved.       Para 40

     CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A. NOS. 7-8 and
9-10 of2015
                                                              D
                               IN

    ·special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23886-23887 OF 2012

      From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2012 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. No. 8029 of E
2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2010 and Oder dated
30.07.2012 in Civil Review Application No. 423 of 2012 in
Civil Misc No. 8029 of 2012 in Writ Petiton (C) No. 1399 of
2010
                                                              F
     Harpawan Kumar Arora, C. L. Sahu for the Appellant.

     Shyam Divan, Sanchar Anand, AAG, Manali Singhal,
Santosh Sachin, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Deepak Singh Rawat,
Abhijat P. Medh, (AP & J Chambers, Arijit Prasad, Poornima G
Bhat, Gargi Khanna, Anil Katiyar, Apoorv Singhal, Devendra
Singh for the Respondents.                      ·

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                                                              H
426         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A           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.

 B          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.
c
            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
 D    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 in.:. ... rporated
      under the Companies Act on 23.02.1987. On 06.03.1987, it
 E    was granted certificate of commencement of business. This
      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
 F    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
G 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
H     compliance of the above said order, the GFIL Committee
  THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE                    427 .
      LTD. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

published an advertisement for the auction of certain properties   A
of the company. The applicants herein participated in the
auction 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-.                                                           B

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

     (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         F
deposited 25% of the bid amount, i.e., 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        G
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             H
428         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 11 S.C.R.


·A    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
B     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.
C     (Rs.101.80crores).

            10. Thereafter, this Court transferred the pending cases
      to the Delhi High Court for further action.

D           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
E     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
F     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.
G
            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 of2012
H     in W.P. No. 1399 of2010.
  THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE                     429
      LTD. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

     15. By order dated 09.07.2012, the High Court directed A
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    B
petition being R.P. No. 423 of2012 in C.M. No.8029 of2012
in W.P.(C) No. 1399 of2010. By order dated 30.07.2012, the
High Court dismissed the same.

      17. Instead of refunding the amount, the GFIL Committee       c
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
                                                                    0
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         E
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 the entire sale
consideration with interest to the applicants. However, while       F
refunding it, the GFIL deducted the TDS on the interest accrued
o·n 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 ~efore G
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
                                                                    H
430         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
 B    Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and Flamingo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. applied
      on 22.10.2012 to tl'le Government of Punjab through S.D.M.
      Dera Bassi for refund of stamp duty amoun"t. One applicant,
      namely, Swans Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. applied to the
      Government of Punjab through S.D.M., Dera Bassi for refund
C     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
D 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 h~e already been consigned to the records
  as not maintainable.

E           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
F     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
G 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 -
H "purchase of the properties in questions by the
   THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRABUILDTECH PRIVATE                     431
       LTD. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.)

  applicants" and when the Court as a consequence thereof A
  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 exchequer. In other words,
  the submission of the learned counsel is that when the original B
· 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 C
  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.
                                                                    D
        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 Stamp
 Act, 1899 (for short called 'the Act') read with Section 65 of E
 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 F
 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.                      G

      27. In the third place, learned counsel contended thatthe
 SOM 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   H
432         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A duty amount arose for the first time in applicants' favour 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
  GFI L Committee to handover the possession of the properties
B 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
  outthat the applicants, in compliance to liberty granted, applied
  to the State Government on 22.10.2012/02.11.2012 which was
C within the time prescribed in Section 50 of the Act. It was,
  therefore, his submission that the State Government (SOM,
  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
0
  applicants, as was claimed by the"m in their applications.

             28. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents
      supported the impugned order of rejection passed by the SOM
      and contended that the applicants' claim was rightly rejected
 E    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 urge~ by the learned counsel for the applicants.
 F
            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.

 G       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 (Rs.101.80 crores) and Rs (6.22 crores)
   for stamp duty to purchase the properties in question, and
 H having performed their part of contr::ict, in letter and spirit, the
  THE COMMITIEE-GFIL v. LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE                    433
      LTD. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

GFIL Committee i.e. seller failed to place the applicants in       A
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 B
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 C
from the State Government.

       33. The order dated 26.9.2012 reads as under:-

      "Whatever be the reason, it has been
                                                                   D
     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 t'1e interest                  E
     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.
                                                                   F
       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,                   G
     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                     H
434         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A          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."
 B
            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
c     application to the State Government (S.D.M., Dera Bassi) on
      22.10.2012/02.11.2012.

             35. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the
      undisputed facts mentioned above, the applicants are also
0     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.

 E       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
F 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
G 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
H any steps in the matter without the permission of the Court.
  THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRA.BUILDTECH PRIVATE                       435
      LTD. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Fifthly, the applicants throughout performed their part of the A
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 restoratiQn of all such benefits/advantages from the B
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 contractto seek
restoration of all such advantage from other party which they
took from such contract when the contract is discovered to be C
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
                                                                 0
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 E
Broom's Legal Maxims 10th edition, 1939 at page 73 this
maxim is explained saying that i~ is founded upon justice and
good sense and afforded a safe and certain guide for th.e
administration of law. This maxim is also explained in the same F
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 sec 398)                                         G

       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.
                                                                      H
436        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A        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
B execution of sale deed in relation to the properties in question.
  Indeed in the light of six reasons set out supra which, in our
  considered opinion, in clear terms attracts the principle
  contained in the aforesaid maxim, the State has no right to
  de.fend the order of SOM for retaining the amount of stamp
C 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
D the Chief Justice M.C. Chagla in a case reported in Firm
  Kaluram Sitaram vs. The Dominion of India (AIR 1954
  Bombay50).

        41. The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of
E 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,
 F        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."
G
       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
H case to defend their action.
  THE COMMITTEE-GFIL v. LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE                   437
      LTD. & ORS. JABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      43. Even apart from what we have held above, when we A
examine the case of the applicants in fhe 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 B
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 C
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 the applicants were found unfit
thereby defeating the purpose originally intended. This
occurred either due to some error or mistake therein. Since D
the exe~ution 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. E
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 F
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 were
rightly dismissed by the SOM on the ground of limitation G
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 H
438          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 11 S.C.R.


A 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.
B
         46. lnviewoftheforegoing 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 SOM,
  Dera Bassi is directed to refund the entire stamp duty
C amounting to Rs.6.22 crores spent by the applicants for
  purchasing of stamps papers for 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.
D
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                               I.As. allowed.