Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. 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.
2 Committee-GFIL vs. Libra Buildtech Private Limted and Others - (2015) 16 SCC DECEMBER 12, 2025 Aarti Palkar WP.8365.2024.doc
22. 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 the 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 having performed their part of contract, in letter and spirit, the GFIL Committee i.e. seller failed to place the applicants in possession of the properties. This event resulted in frustrating the purpose as was originally intended between the parties.
24. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the undisputed facts mentioned above, the applicants are also 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.
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 Committee) to refund the entire sale consideration to the applicants.....

40. In the light of the decision in Committee-GFIL and Rajeev Nohwar, a Learned Single Judge of this Court, in Satish Buba Shetty4 dealt with another case of a refund sought pursuant to disputes between a flat purchaser and a developer being reversed by way of a settlement in proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The application for stamp duty was evidently well after the six-month deadline, and the Learned Single Judge held that the Stamp Authorities could not be faulted for their inability to exercise their discretion in view of the six-month deadline having been missed. However, but in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the Court allowed the refund of stamp duty in the following words:

[Emphasis Supplied]

41. In Committee-GFIL, Article 142 had not been invoked. In Rajeev Nowhar, Article 142 was invoked. The principles articulated in both these decisions were invoked in Satish Buba Shetty in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Satish Buba Shetty, the Learned Single Judge indeed took the view that the delays in litigation were outside the control of the party seeking the refund, but it is also true that it was a case where there was a conscious settlement arrived at between the parties to reverse the transaction, although in the course of litigation.