Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

41. In Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech (P) Ltd9., an auction sale of immoveable properties of a Company (GFIL) by a Committee constituted by the Supreme Court took place. Successful bidders deposited with the Committee entire amount of sale consideration and stamp duty in terms of auction conditions and directions of Court monitoring the transaction. But despite full performance of purchasers' part of the contract, the Committee ( seller) could not deliver possession of the properties to the purchasers and the transaction failed for reasons beyond the control of the parties. The Supreme Court cancelled the transaction and directed the Committee to refund the entire sale consideration with interest and permitted the petitioners to approach the State Government to claim refund of stamp duty. The Committee refunded the sale consideration, but the State refused to refund the stamp duty spent for execution of sale deeds in their favor in relation to the properties in question. The purchasers then approached the Supreme Court. It held that they are entitled under Sec.65 of the Contract Act,1872 to refund of the stamp duty as well. It held:

"25. 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 (2015) 16 SCC 31 16 MSR,J & TA,J wp_27987_2019 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 26-9-201211. 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-

42. The Court in Committee-GFIL ( 9 supra) went on to observe that bonafide claim of petitioner cannot be rejected on technical grounds . It held:

"28. ... then the applicants, in our opinion, are entitled to claim the refund of the entire amount of stamp duty from the State Government which they spent in purchasing the stamp papers for 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 attract the principle contained in the aforesaid maxim, the State has no right to defend the order of the SDM for retaining the amount of stamp duty paid by the applicants with them. The applicants' bona fide 17 MSR,J & TA,J wp_27987_2019 genuine claim of refund cannot be denied on such technical grounds.