DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusM. ARUNMOZHI & ANR.

                   [2026] 1 S.C.R. 24 : 2026 INSC 10

                           Dharmendra Sharma
                                   v.
                           M. Arunmozhi & Anr.
              (Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 703-704 of 2025
                                    In
                 Civil Appeal No(s). 2809-2810 of 2024)
                                05 January 2026
               [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to contempt petitions by the appellant-petitioner,
       alleging, inter alia, that respondent no. 1 willfully failed to comply
       with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dharmendra
       Sharma v. Agra Development Authority, (2025) 1 SCC 422, whereby
       the respondent was called to refund an amount of Rs. 3,99,100/- ,
       being the cost of the non-judicial stamp papers purchased by the
       petitioner.

                                   Headnotes†
       Contempt of court – Contempt petitions – Contempt petitions
       by the appellant-petitioner alleging, that respondent no. 1
       willfully failed to refund an amount of Rs. 3,99,100/- , being
       the cost of the non-judicial stamp papers purchased by the
       petitioner, as directed by this Court in Dharmendra Sharma v.
       Agra Development Authority (2025) 1 SCC 422:
       Held: Respondent no. 2-State, conceded that the rejection of the
       petitioner’s application for refund was founded on r.218 of the
       U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 (as amended), which proscribes refund
       of physical non-judicial stamp papers after the expiry of a period
       of eight years, was taken on a bona fide interpretation of the said
       provision, and tendered an unconditional apology, and stated that
       respondent no. 2 remains duty-bound to implement the directions
       issued by this Court in the interest of justice – Thus, issuance of
       direction simpliciter to respondent no. 2 to refund a sum of Rs.
       3,99,100/- to the petitioner, upon return of the non-judicial stamp
       papers received by him from respondent no. 1, within the stipulated
       period – U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942. [Paras 7, 8]

* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                         25

              Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr.


                             Case Law Cited
     Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority [2024] 9 SCR
     97 : (2025) 1 SCC 422 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942.

                            List of Keywords
     Contempt petitions; Willful non-compliance; Refund of the cost of
     non-judicial stamp papers.

                           Case Arising From
     INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) No(s). 703-
     704 of 2025
     In
     Civil Appeal No(s). 2809-2810 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2024 of the Supreme
     Court of India at Delhi in AC Nos. 2810 and 2809 of 2024

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
     Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Om Prakash, Vikas Singh Jangra.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Shaurya Sahay, Aman Jaiswal, Ms. Palak
     Mathur.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Vikram Nath, J.

1.   Heard Shri Vipin Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
     and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2.   The present contempt petitions have been instituted by the appellant
     in the civil appeals already disposed of, alleging, inter alia, that
     respondent no. 1 has willfully failed to comply with the directions
26                                                           [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


      issued by this Court in its judgment dated 6th September, 2024,
      rendered in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority,
      reported in (2025) 1 SCC 422. The relevant portion of the judgment
      germane to the controversy at hand is reproduced hereinbelow: -
           “34. In light of the aforementioned observations and
           taking into account the shortcomings on the part of both
           the appellant and ADA, this Court deems it appropriate to
           provide a compensation of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen
           lakhs only) apart from what was awarded by NCDRC.
           Therefore, apart from the refund of the entire amount
           deposited by the appellant @ 9% interest per annum
           from 11-7-2020 till the date of refund, ADA is directed to
           pay an additional amount of Rs 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen
           lakhs only) to the appellant. The entire amount should be
           rendered to the appellant within three months of this order.
           We also order ADA to return the non-judicial stamp worth
           Rs 3,99,100 back to the appellant.
           ...
           35. Furthermore, we refrain from imposing any exemplary
           costs on either party, recognising that both have contributed
           to the situation at hand. It is also to be noted that ADA,
           being a civic body tasked with serving the public and
           operating on a non-profit basis, should not be unduly
           penalised in a manner that could impede its functioning.
           36. Civil Appeals Nos. 2809-10 of 2024 are disposed of
           accordingly.”
3.    The petitioner submits that although respondent no. 1 has complied
      with the remaining directions issued by this Court, namely, refunding
      the entire amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest
      at the rate of 9% per annum, and paying an additional sum of Rs.
      15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only), however the respondent
      has failed to refund an amount of Rs. 3,99,100/- (Rupees Three
      Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand One Hundred only), being the cost of
      the non-judicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner. It is further
      averred that, instead of refunding the said amount, respondent no. 1,
      on 7th December, 2024, returned the twenty-two original stamp papers,
      which had in the meanwhile expired, through postal communication.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                             27

                 Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr.


4.   According to the petitioner, he addressed representations to the
     Assistant Commissioner of Stamps, Agra, seeking refund of the
     amount paid towards the unused twenty-two original stamp papers.
     However, the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Agra, by
     order dated 21st July, 2025, rejected the petitioner’s request for refund
     of the stamp value, informing him that the same was not refundable.
     The relevant extract of the said order reads as under: -
           “Regarding the refund of physical non-judicial stamp
           papers, it is regretfully informed that physical non-judicial
           stamp papers can be refunded within a maximum period
           of eight years from their date of purchase.
           ...
           As it evident from the above, the concerned notification
           came into effect in the state from 20th December 2017,
           and it is clarified in the notification that no application for
           stamp refund will be accepted one year after the date of
           the amendment in cases where the decision for the stamp
           refund is required to be taken by the state government.
           You first submitted the application for the refund of the
           stamp value to this office on 20.12.2024. By that date,
           approximately 10 years had elapsed since you purchased
           the stamps. Therefore, following the notification passed
           by the state government in 2017, the prescribed eight-
           year period for stamp value refund had already expired
           and additionally, the final date for applying for the refund
           of old stamps which was 20th December 2018, had also
           passed. Thus, your right to a refund of the stamp value
           had become barred by limitation.
           You have also mentioned in your letter dated 26.06.2025 that
           in paragraph 23 of the judgment dated 06.09.2024passed
           by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, directions have been
           given to the Registration Department for the refund of
           the stamp value. In this context, the copy of the Hon’ble
           Supreme Court’s judgment dated 06.09.2024, attached
           with the application, was perused. A perusal of paragraph
           23 makes it clear that the Hon’ble Court has only ordered
           the Agra Development Authority to physically return the
28                                                           [2026] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


           stamp papers worth Rs.3,99,100 in its possession to the
           petitioner and there is no direction to the Registration
           Department for the refund of the stamp value. The Uttar
           Pradesh Stamp and Registration Department was not
           even included as a party in this civil appeal. Therefore, the
           order passed by the Hon’ble Court was applicable only to
           the Development Authority. The Stamp and Registration
           Department has no connection with it.
           Therefore, in view of the above legal circumstances, all
           applications submitted by you for the refund of the stamp
           value are rejected after consideration and it is also informed
           that the stamp value cannot be refunded to you under the
           rules by the state government.
           . . .”
5.    Aggrieved by the communication dated 21st July, 2025, the petitioner
      has instituted the present contempt petitions.
6.    When the matter was taken up for hearing for the first time, having
      regard to the peculiar factual situation obtaining in the case, the
      petitioner sought leave to implead the State of Uttar Pradesh through
      the Collector, Agra, as a party to the proceedings. Vide order dated
      14th October, 2025, such permission was granted and notice was
      issued in the contempt petitions. Consequently, the State of Uttar
      Pradesh has been impleaded as respondent no. 2 herein.
7.    In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, it has been
      fairly submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for
      refund was founded on Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 (as
      amended), which proscribes refund of physical non-judicial stamp
      papers after the expiry of a period of eight years. At the same time,
      respondent no. 2 has candidly conceded that the said action was
      taken on a bona fide interpretation of the aforesaid provision, has
      tendered an unconditional apology, and has further stated that
      respondent no. 2 remains duty-bound to implement the directions
      issued by this Court in the interest of justice.
8.    Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issues that have
      subsequently arisen after the disposal of the original civil appeals,
      we are inclined to dispose of the present contempt petitions by
      issuing a direction simpliciter to respondent no. 2 to refund a sum
[2026] 1 S.C.R.                                                        29

                 Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr.


     of Rs. 3,99,100/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand One
     Hundred only) to the petitioner, upon return of the non-judicial stamp
     papers received by him from respondent no. 1, within a period of
     two months from today.
9.   The contempt petitions qua respondent no. 1 shall stand closed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Contempt petitions disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain