Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court that delay in filing the application for refund of stamp duty due to judicial delay then such applications not to be rejected. The court while allowing the appeal had set aside the decision of the High Court and directed the refund to be paid to the appellant with an interest of 6% per annum from 16th July 2016, to the date of refund on the condition that the appellant returns e-stamp paper to Collector of Stamps.
The appellant had booked an apartment with a builder for residential purposes. An initial sale consideration was paid by the appellant and he received an allotment letter. Then he paid the remaining sum of money for the apartment and bought a stamp paper for the execution of the agreement to sell. Since a dispute came up between the appellant and builder, the appellant filed a consumer complaint.
A complaint was instituted before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the complaint was allowed wherein the appellant was given a choice whether to execute the agreement where the builder would give ten lakh rupees as compensation and if not willing, then the entire amount would be refunded along with interest.
Appellant filed an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority whereby the appeal was dismissed as Collector of Stamps recommended that the refund be denied since appellant did not apply for the refund within a period of six months.
A Writ Petition was filed as per Article 226, Constitution of India, by the appellant before the High Court and the court dismissed the same.
A civil appeal was filed before the Apex Court, the court opined:
“However, in the case of an eventuality such as the instant case where the facts of the case are not covered by the statute, this Court under Article 142 will have the power to do complete justice by condoning the delay. We are of the view that since the delay in filling the application for refund in the instant case was due to the prolonged proceedings before the NCDRC, the application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. A litigant has no control over judicial delays. A rejection of the application for refund would violate equity, justice and fairness where the applicant is made to suffer the brunt of judicial delay. Therefore, this is a fit case for the exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution.”
LEGALFLAME 