THE COMMITTEE-GFIL versus LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 420, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
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 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. 
Broom's Leal Maxims 10'h Edition, 1939
p.73; 
Jenk. Cent. 118 - referred to. 
G 
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] 
Case Law Referece 
1977 (3) SCR 312 
relied on. 
Para 37 
1988 (1) SCR 118 
relied on. 
Para 37 
AIR 1954 Bombay 50 
approved. 
Para 40 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A. NOS. 7-8 and 
9-10 of2015 
IN 
B 
c 
D 
·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 
c 
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. 
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, 
(b) Property No.2 (Hotel behind Central office at village 
Jharmari, bid by Saffron Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.) for 
Rs.16.25 crores. 
c 
(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) Property No.9 (Farm Lands at village Kurali, bid by 
Flamingo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd.) for Rs.27.25 crores. 
E 
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. 
G 
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. 
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 
0 
should have granted refund of entire stamp duty amount to the 
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. 
F 
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. 
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 
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 
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. 
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, 
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 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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 
B 
bound by the same." 
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 
B 
State in the light of the grounds mentioned above. 
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.