DR. POORNIMA ADVANI & ANRversusGOVERNMENT OF NCT & ANR.

          [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1178 : 2025 INSC 262

               Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr.
                           v.
               Government of NCT & Anr.
                (Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2025)
                       18 February 2025
       [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellants
would be entitled to claim interest on delayed stamp duty refund,
in the absence of a provision in the statute to that effect.

                           Headnotes†
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Refund of Stamp
Duty – Interest to be paid along with the principal:
Held: The Appellants approached the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution following their request for refund of the
stamp duty as the e-stamp paper purchased by the Appellants
was misplaced – The Single Judge of the High Court passed an
order directing the Respondents to refund Rs. 28,10,000/- being the
principal amount of the stamp duty – The Writ Petition was partly
allowed as only the principal amount was ordered to be refunded
whereas the interest on the same was declined – The Appellants
herein being dissatisfied with non-grant of interest on the sum
of Rs. 28,10,000/- preferred Letters Patent Appeal – The appeal
Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal – The Civil Appeal allowed
and the Respondents directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,35,968/-
(Rs. Four Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight
Only) towards interest within a period of two months from the date
of the order without fail. [Paras 6, 7, 10, 31]

Payment of Interest – Person deprived of money entitled to
be compensated for deprivation:
Held: The subject General Mandamus is a salutary advancement
of the law, calculated to insulate and protect a citizen from unfair
treatment by the State – Referring to Authorised Officer Karnataka
Bank v. M/s R.M.S. Granites Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.
12294 of 2024, held that when a person is deprived of the use of
his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                                 1179

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


     compensated for the deprivation which may be called interest or
     compensation – Interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of
     money in general terms which has returned or compensation for
     the use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to
     other – Referring to Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government
     of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508, it was noted that a
     person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled
     has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any
     name – Reference being made to Riches v. Westminister Bank
     Ltd., 1947 (1) ALL ER 469 wherein it has been held that interest
     is a payment, which becomes due because the creditor has not
     had his money at the due date – It may be recorded either as
     representing the profit he might have made if he had had the use
     of the money, or, conversely, the loss he suffered because he had
     not that use. [Paras 15, 17, 20, 21]

     Doctrine of restitution – Interest necessary corollary of doctrine
     of restitution – Discussed:
     Held: If doctrine of restitution is attracted, interest should follow –
     Restitution in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the
     modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order what has been
     lost to him in execution of decree or order of the Court or in direct
     consequence of a decree or order – The term “restitution” is used
     in three senses, firstly, return or restoration of some specific thing to
     its rightful owner or status, secondly, the compensation for benefits
     derived from wrong done to another and, thirdly, compensation or
     reparation for the loss caused to another – Principles of restitution
     discussed in O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai,
     JT 2007 (10) SC 76 referred. [Paras 25, 27]

     Principle of compensation – When the collection is illegal, the
     amount so collected to be refunded with interest – Discussed:
     Held: Reference being made to Union of India through Director of
     Income Tax v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335, wherein it
     was held that when the collection is illegal, the Revenue is obliged
     to refund such amount with interest as money so deposited was
     retained and enjoyed by it – No discrimination can be shown between
     the assessee and Revenue in paying interest on the refund of tax –
     Money received and retained without right, carries with it the right to
     interest – Obligation to refund money received and retained without
     right implies and carries with in the right to interest. [Para 29]
1180                                                     [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Interest; Refund of interest; Compensation.

                              Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2019 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 288 of 2019

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Abhishek Puri, Sahil Grewal, Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Mrs. Reeta Dewan
     Puri, P. N. Puri.
     Adv. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

1.   IA No. 4291/2024 for substitution is allowed. Cause title be amended
     accordingly.
2.   Leave granted.
3.   This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
     Court of Delhi dated 27th September, 2019 in Letters Patent Appeal
     No. 288 of 2019 by which the appeal filed by the appellants herein
     against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
     of the High Court partly allowing the Writ Petition No. 9014 of 2017
     filed by the appellants herein came to be dismissed.
4.   The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:-
     The appellants herein were desirous of purchasing an immovable
     property in New Delhi. For that purpose, they purchased the e-stamp
     paper dated 06.07.2016 valued at Rs.28,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty
     Eight Lakh Ten Thousand Only). The money for that purpose was
     paid from the joint bank account of the appellants being husband and
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                               1181

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


     wife respectively. The e-stamp paper which came to be purchased
     was dated 06.07.2016.
5.   We borrow the other relevant facts from the judgment and order
     passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20th August, 2018 more
     particularly, from paragraph 4.3 therein:-
           “4.3 Pertinently, the e-stamp paper dated 06.07.2016
           purchased by the petitioners, sets down the following details:
                (i) Particulars of the property, which was proposed to be
                purchased;(ii) the names of the parties, who intended
                to execute the sale deed;(iii) the consideration to be
                paid for consummating the sale transaction; and (iv)
                the value of e-stamp paper.
           4.4 According to the petitioners, though initially, the intention
           was to execute the sale deed concerning subject property
           in July,2016, since, there was some delay in closing the
           loan transaction via which the transaction was to be funded,
           the execution of the sale deed was delayed.
           4.5 This delay proved to be fatal, inasmuch as, on 4.8.2016,
           the petitioners were told by the broker, who had the custody
           of the e-stamp paper, that the e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016
           had been misplaced.
           4.6 The petitioners realizing the enormity of the loss, filed a
           complaint with the Crime Branch, Delhi Police, on that very
           day i.e. 4.8.2016. As a follow up action, on 06.08.2016, the
           petitioners got public notices issued in two newspapers,
           namely, Asian Age (English edition) and Rashtriya Sahara
           (Hindi edition).
           4.7 Since, the petitioners were desirous of taking the sale
           transaction in respect of subject property forward, they
           were left with no choice but to purchase a fresh e-stamp
           paper, which they did, on 6.8.2016.
           4.8 This stamp paper bore the No.IN-DL80452882772240.
           The money for this was also paid out from the joint account
           of the petitioners, maintained with the State Bank of India.
           4.9 Consequent thereto, on 8.8.2016, the petitioners and
           the vendor i.e., M/s. Scud Finlease Limited executed a
           sale deed.
1182                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports



        5. On 11.8.2016, the petitioners filed an application with the
        Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Collector of Stamps, for refund
        of stamp duty amounting to Rs.28,10,000/- on account of
        loss of the e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016.
        5.1 The prayer made in the application was that the
        amount be refunded to the petitioners after deducting the
        usual cancellation charges, if any. The application was
        accompanied by an affidavit of petitioner No.2 that the
        e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016 has been lost and was not
        traceable despite best efforts.
        5.2 Furthermore, an indemnity bond was also executed
        by petitioner No.2, whereby he undertook to indemnify the
        respondents, if the stand taken by him that the e-stamp
        paper dated 6.7.2016 had been lost, proved to be incorrect
        and, as a result thereof, any loss/damage, etc. was suffered
        by them.
        5.3 Since no action was taken on the petitioners’ application
        dated 11.8.2016, the petitioners addressed a letter dated
        8.9.2016 to respondent No.2. In this letter, apart from
        anything else what was sought to be highlighted by the
        petitioners were two aspects: first, given the fact that every
        transaction is made in electronic form, it could be verified
        almost instantaneously; and second, the misplaced or lost
        e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016 could not be used for any
        other purpose except that, which stood specified in the
        e-stamp paper. It was emphasized that given that fact that
        via a fresh e-stamp paper dated 6.8.2016, transaction qua
        the stamp paper dated 6.7.2016 had been consummated,
        the lost e-stamp paper had lost its legal efficacy and thus,
        could not be misused by anyone else.
        5.4 As is evidence that both these assertions were made
        by the petitioners to allay the apprehensions of respondent
        No.2.
        5.5 However, the petitioners’ plea for refund of stamp
        duty did not cut much ice with the respondents and,
        consequently, vide order dated 21.10.2018, the Collector
        of Stamps (HQ) rejected the petitioners’ application dated
        11.8.2016 maintained for refund of stamp duty.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1183

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.



           6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.10.2016,
           the petitioners have preferred by the instant writ petition.”
6.   The learned Single Judge adjudicated the writ petition and ultimately
     thought fit to partly allow the same. The learned Single Judge issued
     a writ of mandamus to the respondents herein to refund a sum
     of Rs. 28,10,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date of
     pronouncement of the judgment.
7.   It appears that the petition was partly allowed as only the principal
     amount was ordered to be refunded whereas the interest on the same
     was declined. We take notice of few relevant observations made
     by the learned Single Judge while ordering refund of the principal
     amount referred to above:-
           “19. Therefore, the question before me is: should the Court,
           in such circumstances, fold its hands and deny a person,
           who has lost the stamp paper, relief only because the
           draftsman has omitted the use of such expression explicitly
           in the Statute. As noticed above, it is not unknown to law
           that when Courts have encountered such creases in the
           Statute they have proceeded to iron them out without
           destroying the fabric which forms the core of the Statute.
           The expression obliterate appearing in Section 49(a) of
           the Act should, in my opinion, include cases where the
           Stamp paper is lost by an applicant seeking refund of
           stamp duty. This would be a reasonable ‘and practical’
           interpretation of Section 49(a) of the Act, as any other
           interpretation could lead to a situation where it may fall
           foul of Article 14 of the Constitution.
           20. There is another way of looking at the matter, which
           is, the scheme of Chapter V of the Act. If the scheme,
           as discussed above, is kept in mind, respondents ought
           to refund stamp duty even in cases where an applicant
           claims refund of stamp duty on account of loss of e-stamp
           paper; subject to an enquiry establishing factum of loss
           and adequate safeguards being put in. To my mind, if
           the contrary view was sustained, it would result in the
           State retaining money without the authority of law, as
           admittedly, the taxing event had not occurred in the facts
           and circumstances of this case.
1184                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


        21. In the instant case, the petitioners have provided a
        photocopy of e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016, which at the
        moment, is the best secondary evidence available with it,
        which, shows that the e-stamp paper was not engrossed.
        21.1 Given the foregoing discussion, clearly, the amount
        retained by the respondents cannot be in the nature of
        tax as the taxing event has not occurred in the instant
        case. It cannot be also in the nature of fee as there was
        no quid pro quo.
        21.2 In any event, the stand of the respondents is that the
        stamp duty is in the nature of tax. If that be the position,
        could the respondents retain money in anticipation of the
        taxing event occurring? Article 265 of the Constitution
        provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except
        by authority of law. Therefore, emphasis is not only on no
        tax being levied without the authority of law, but is also on
        collection of tax without authority of law.
        22. Therefore, in my view, the continued retention of
        amount paid towards anticipated stamp duty in the hands
        of the respondents is illegal. The apprehension expressed
        by the respondents that there was a possibility of the lost
        e-stamp paper being mis-utilized seems to be tenuous for
        the following reasons:
        (i)    First, the particulars of the transaction, parties and
               the consideration have already been incorporated in
               the lost e-stamp paper.
        (ii)   Second, with the technological innovation in place, the
               said information would be available and anyone trying
               to use the lost e-stamp paper can easily be found out.
               In any event, the fact the lost e-stamp paper dated
               06.07.2016 adverts to the same property qua which
               sale transaction stands effected via the new stamp
               paper dated 06.08.2016, the possibility of misuse of
               the old e-stamp paper dated 06.07.2016, to my mind,
               does not arise.
        (iii) The lost e-stamp paper dated 06.07.2016 having
              been locked and cancelled, there is, to my mind,
              given the technology in place, no possibility of the
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          1185

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


                lost e-stamp paper being mis-utilized. The Collector of
                Stamps invariably checks the website of Stock Holding
                Corporation Ltd. to ascertain whether or not the stamp
                paper is genuine. The order dated 11.03.2015, passed
                by the Divisional Commissioner, clearly casts such an
                obligation on the Collector of Stamps.
           (iv) Lastly, in any case, the petitioners have furnished an
                indemnity bond, and therefore, loss or damages, if any,
                suffered by the respondents can always be recovered.
           23. Before I proceed further, I need to touch upon the
           argument raised by Mr. Ramesh Singh that the view held
           by a Single Judge of this Court in Piyush Aggarwal’s
           case requires reconsideration. This was a case where the
           petitioners had sought refund of stamp duty on account
           of the fact that before the instrument on which the stamp
           duty was leviable, was executed, by virtue of a notification
           issued by the State, the stamp duty and transfer duty on
           conveyance had been substantially reduced. Since, the
           petitioners had paid excess stamp duty and transfer duty,
           they sought refund of the same.
           23.1 The facts, as gleaned from the judgment, would show
           that the conveyance i.e. the instrument, in that case, was
           executed on 30.06.2003, whereas the notification, reducing
           the stamp duty and transfer duty, was issued on 19.05.2003.
           23.2 The Court was, thus, called upon to adjudicate two
           aspects: First, as to when, did the chargeable event occur?
           Second, whether in the given circumstances, the petitioners
           claim for refund of excess stamp duty and transfer duty
           was sustainable?
           23.3 Insofar as the first aspect was concerned, the Court
           ruled that the chargeable event, for levy of stamp duty,
           would occur on the date of execution of the instrument and
           not on the date of adjudication or the date of presentation,
           which, in that case were events which occurred prior to
           the date of the notification, whereby the stamp duty and
           transfer duty charges were reduced by the State.
           23.4 Insofar as the second issue was concerned, the Court
           held that Section 52 which allows, inter alia, for refund
1186                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        of stamp duty in cases where a person, inadvertently,
        uses on an instrument chargeable with duty, a stamp
        of a description other than that prescribed for such an
        instrument — was available to the petitioners for refund
        of stamp duty. According to the Court, if the date of
        execution of the instrument is taken as the date which
        would determine as to what would be the admissible
        stamp duty that had to be levied on the instrument (i.e. the
        conveyance) then, the petitioner‘s case would fall within
        the ambit of the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, as
        excess duty had been, inadvertently, paid by the petitioners
        since the notification reducing the rate of stamp duty and
        transfer duly stood published prior to the execution of the
        instrument in that case.
        23.5 This apart, the Court observed that even if it is
        assumed that Section 52 of the Act was not applicable,
        the petitioners would be entitled to refund of stamp duty
        as the State could not retain the stamp duty in view of the
        provision of Article 265 of the Constitution. The relevant
        observations made by the Court are as follow:
             “….11. Even as regards applicability of Section
             52 of the Act, the matter can be looked at in
             another perspective. The “chargeable event”
             being the date of execution of the document and
             if on that date higher than the admissible stamp
             duty is levied or collected, it would fall within the
             ambit of excess payment being “inadvertently”
             collected on the said date from the petitioner.
             Thus, it could even be urged that Section 52
             of the Act was applicable. Further as noticed
             earlier dehors the applicability of Section 52 of
             the Act, stamp duty collected without authority of
             law cannot be retained in terms of Article 265 of
             the Constitution of India in the absence of any
             statutory provision requiring refund application
             to be submitted within a specified period or
             prohibiting the refund unless made within the
             specified period. In the instant case, it may be
             noted, that application for refund had been made
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          1187

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


                within the stipulated period of six months under
                Section 52 of the Act…..”
                                             (Emphasis is mine)

           23.6 Having regard to the facts which obtained in Piyush
           Aggarwal’s case and enunciation of law by the Court,
           I am not persuaded to hold that the judgment requires
           reconsideration, as was contended by Mr. Ramesh Singh.
           To my mind, the ambit and scope of Article 265 of the
           Constitution is not restricted only to cases where the
           Court finds that the levy imposed by the State is illegal or
           unconstitutional. As adverted to above, Article 265 of the
           Constitution, not only imposes a bar on imposition of tax
           without the authority of law, it also imposes a prohibition
           on collection of tax without the authority of law.
           23.7 In my opinion, the other contention of Mr. Ramesh
           Singh that the Court in Piyush Aggarwal’s case failed
           to notice the legal regime of the Act, is also not correct
           in view of the fact that the Court did notice the relevant
           provisions, which were necessary for adjudication of the
           matter at hand.
           23.8 The other submission of Mr. Ramesh Singh, that the
           Act is a complete code by itself and that refund could only
           be ordered in respect of instances provided in the Act,
           has been answered by me hereinabove. The rationale
           employed by me is that the scheme of Chapter V of Act
           which adverts to allowances and refunds is required to
           be interpreted in a manner that the Statute does not fall
           foul of the Constitution.
           23.9 Therefore, in that sense, the other argument of Mr.
           Ramesh Singh that the Collector of Stamps is a creature
           of the Statute and can, therefore, only operate within its
           periphery, has to be answered, in my opinion, in the same
           vein. While one cannot quibble with the proposition that
           the statutory authority has to necessarily act within the
           ambit of the statute which forms the basis of its nativity,
           the extent and amplitude of its power will, however, be
           governed by the provision of the Constitution. There being
1188                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        no prohibition in the Act for grant of refund for lost stamp
        paper, surely the Collector of Stamps cannot collect or
        retain what lawfully does not belong to the State.
        24. Interestingly, our neighbouring country i.e. Pakistan,
        which has a somewhat similar Statute, dealing with the
        levy collection and refund of stamp duty, is beset with
        difficulties which are akin those faced by applicant(s), in
        our country, seeking refund of stamp duty on account of
        loss of stamp paper. This aspect, I came across upon a
        judgment dated 23.02.2016, delivered by the Lahore High
        Court, in Writ Petition No.27935 of 2012, titled: Aziz Ullah
        Khan Vs. Government of the Punjab etc., being brought
        to my notice.
        24.1 The Court in that case was faced with a question as
        to whether refund of stamp duty ought to be ordered in
        a case where the petitioners had misplaced i.e. lost the
        stamp papers.
        24.2 The Additional Advocate General resisted the writ
        petition, broadly, on the ground that there was no provision
        for grant of refund of stamp paper, in cases where it was
        lost and that if such a relief was granted, it would result
        in loss to the national exchequer.
        24.3 I must confess that, though, in that case, the Court
        noticed the existence of Rule 5 of the Punjab Non Judicial
        Stamp Refund, Renewal and Disposal Rules, 1954 which
        provided for refund of stamp duty in case of its loss, albeit,
        in specified circumstances i.e., where stamp paper was
        stolen or lost in transit by Government officials. The Court,
        after noting that there was a discrimination, inasmuch
        as, Rule 5 permitted write off where stamp papers were
        lost by public functionaries, whereas, a similar facility
        was not given to private person, went on to deal with the
        other arguments, that is, whether it could order refund
        in exercise of its constitutional powers in the absence of
        specific provision for refund, the possibility of loss to the
        national exchequer, as also misuse of stamp paper, in the
        following manner:
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                             1189

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


                “…..It is very strange to note that the public
                functionaries, in the event of loss of Stamp
                Papers in transit, have been bestowed with a
                remedy to seek write off whereas the private
                persons have not been provided with such
                facility. This fact alone renders it crystal clear
                that a discriminatory treatment is being given
                by the public functionaries to their own brethren
                in the event of loss of stamp papers whereas
                the request of a member of society is not being
                entertained merely for the reason that the
                original are not available. Such approach, being
                in conflict with the clear cut mandate given under
                Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic
                of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be encouraged rather
                deserves to be discouraged.
           10. Learned Additional Advocate General has adopted the
           plea that when the statute has not allowed any refund in
           case of loss of Stamp Papers the same cannot be permitted
           by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction vested
           under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic
           of Pakistan, 1973. In this respect I am of the view that
           according to the golden principle of interpretation of a
           statute, a beneficial approach should be followed. As
           far as the case in hand is concerned, when a via media
           has been provided in the event of loss of Stamp Papers
           during transit by the public functionaries, how the petitioner
           can be deprived of such facility. It is not the case of the
           respondents that the case of the petitioner is not covered
           under Rule 32 of the Rules, 1954. The apex Court of the
           country, in H.R.C. No.40927-S of 2012 Application by
           Abdul Rehman Farooq Pirzada (PLD 2013 SC 829) while
           highlighting the principles of interpretation of statutes by
           the superior Courts has inter-alia held as under:-
                “The interpretation cannot be narrow and
                pedantic but the Courts’ efforts should be to
                construe the same broadly, so that it may be able
                to meet the requirements of an ever changing
                society. The general words cannot be construed
1190                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


             in isolation but the same are to be construed in
             the context in which they are employed. In other
             words, their colour and contents are derived
             from the context.”
        Further, a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rub
        Nawaz Dhadwana Advocate etc. v. Rana Muhammad
        Akram Advocate etc. (W.P. No.16793 of 2014) while
        dealing with the powers of the superior Courts to abridge
        the distance between the legislator and the public-at-large
        has inter-alia observed as under:
             “The judge must reflect these fundamental
             values in the interpretation of legislation. The
             judge should not narrow interpretation to the
             exclusive search for subjective legislative intent.
             He must also consider the “intention” of the legal
             system, for the statute is always wiser than the
             legislature. By doing so the judge gives the
             statute a dynamic meaning and thus bridges
             the gap between law and society.”
        If refusal on the part of the respondents to issue refund
        in favour of the petitioner is adjudged on the touchstone
        of aforequoted cases, I am of the humble opinion that the
        same is not tenable for the reason that when the legislator
        has framed rules for refund of spoiled/unused/lost Stamp
        Papers, how the respondents can interpret said rules
        according to their own whims just to damage the case of
        the claimants.

                xxx                   xxx                  xxx
        In this scenario, the objection raised by the learned Additional
        Advocate General that the refund is not permissible without
        production of original Stamp Papers is of no worth at all.
        The bonafide of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that
        after loss of original Misplaced Stamp Papers he not only
        reported matter to the Police with promptitude but also got
        published proclamation in daily “Smaj” and having done so
        he, with a view to avoid further delay towards execution
        of sale deed, got issued fresh Stamp Papers to complete
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          1191

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


           the sale transaction. A copy of the sale deed provided by
           the above named deed writer shows that the Misplaced
           Stamp Papers were used for the said purpose but due to
           their loss during journey sale deed could not be registered.
           The logic behind issuance of refund against the spoiled,
           destroyed or unused Stamp Papers is to accommodate
           a person who has not used those Stamp Papers for the
           purpose for which the same were issued. In the case in
           hand after admission by the respondents that neither the
           Misplaced Stamp Papers were used for any other purpose
           nor anybody else has claimed refund in that regard, the
           request of the petitioner cannot be turned down merely on
           the ground that he could not produce the original Misplaced
           Stamp Papers before the competent authority. If the original
           Stamp Papers were available with the petitioner there was
           no necessity for him to incur another sum of more than
           one million rupees for the same purpose.
           12. Learned Additional Advocate General has forcefully
           argued that worth of the Stamp Papers is equal to those
           of currency notes and no refund against the currency notes
           is permissible in case where the original are not produced.
           To the extent of worth of Stamp Papers equal to currency
           notes, I agree with the learned law officer, however, to
           the extent of criteria explained by him regarding refund of
           currency notes I have contrary view for the reason that in
           case of currency notes its custodian is always considered
           its lawful owner and it cannot be proved as to which
           specific currency note was in possession of a particular
           person whereas in the case of Stamp Papers entitlement
           of a person can be certified firstly from the National
           Exchequer where price of the Stamp Papers has been
           deposited, secondly from the register of Stamp Vendor
           and thirdly from the authorities before whom the same
           was presented. Insofar as the case in hand is concerned,
           all the authorities have admitted that the Misplaced Stamp
           Papers were issued to the petitioner after payment of
           consideration and those were never utilized for any other
           purpose. In this view of the matter, the objection posed
           by the learned Law Officer is hereby spurned.
1192                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        13. Now taking up plea of learned Additional Advocate
        General that in case refund is allowed in absence of original
        Stamp Papers not only scrupulous persons would be able
        to use them for any other purpose but they would also
        succeed to get refund while causing colossal loss to the
        National Exchequer. In this regard, I am of the view that
        strict criteria can be laid to avoid such apprehension but in
        no way same can be made a ground to deprive a person
        from refund of the amount whose claim has been admitted
        by the relevant forums. In case the respondents have the
        apprehension that the Misplaced Stamp Papers were or
        would be used for any other purpose they can proceed
        against the culprit under the relevant law in addition to
        getting registered a criminal case against the petitioner.
        14. Admittedly, the Misplaced Stamp Papers were used for
        preparation of sale deed as is evident from the recitals of
        copy of sale deed (Annexure-C of this petition), thus, the
        possibility of using the Misplaced Stamp Papers for any
        other purpose is totally ruled out. Moreover, execution of
        sale deed by the petitioner on subsequently purchased
        Stamp Papers also eliminates said apprehension as the
        land once sold cannot be resold on the strength of Stamp
        Papers got issued in that regard.

                xxx                  xxx                  xxx
        16. The learned Additional Advocate General has mainly
        opposed prayer of the petitioner on the premise that there
        is no provision either in the Act, 1899 or in the Rules, 1954,
        regarding a private person, in case of loss of original Stamp
        Papers. In this regard, I am of the view that in view of
        principle ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right there is
        a remedy) nobody can be left remediless. The said principle
        has also been elucidated by the apex Court of the country
        in the case of Sarfraz Saleem v. Federation of Pakistan
        and others (2014 PLC C.S. 884) in the following words:-
             “In these circumstances, lack of exercise of
             jurisdiction by the High Court in the present
             case seems to be contrary to the well accepted
             principle “ubi jus ibi remedium” (where there
             is a right there is a remedy) and the spirit of
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            1193

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


                Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution, meant to
                safeguard the rights of every individual/person
                to be dealt with in accordance with law”
           The afore-quoted portion of the judgment of apex Court of
           the country renders it more than clear that nobody can be
           left remediless. Moreover, while dealing with the matters of
           masses they cannot be penalized due to stagnant attitude of
           the legislator about new Issues. Insofar as case in hand is
           concerned, request of the petitioner deserves sympathetic
           consideration for the reason that after completion of codal
           formalities his request has been turned down mainly on
           the ground that original Stamp Papers have not been
           produced. At the cost of repetition it is observed that when
           the legislator itself has held that Collector can refer matter
           of refund against unused stamp papers even without
           producing the original one the stubbornness on the part of
           competent authority in this regard is not understandable.
           Public functionaries are supposed to eliminate difficulties
           of public-at-large but when they themselves try to impede
           their way to have their legitimate right the entire threadbare
           of our society would be devastated.
           17. Now taking up plea of learned Additional Advocate
           General that if refund is allowed even in cases where
           the original Stamp Papers are not produced the National
           Exchequer would suffer badly, I am of the view that the
           respondents are not going to pay anything either from their
           own pockets or from the National Exchequer either they
           have to repay the amount twice deposited by the petitioner.
           Had the petitioner claimed anything in addition to that he
           deposited at the time of issuance of Stamp Papers then the
           said contention would have some substance. Considering
           from another angle in the cases where spoiled or unused
           Stamp Papers are returned by the persons concerned they
           are issued refund without taking into consideration that the
           said amount is being repaid from the National Exchequer.
           This fact alone amounts to discrimination on the part of
           competent authority…...”
                                                   (Emphasis is mine)
                    xxx                 xxx                 xxx
1194                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        25. As would be noticed, the Aziz Ullah Khan‘s case,
        on facts, was pari materia with the facts obtaining in the
        instant case. In that case, the stamp paper was lost, which
        was required for consummation of the sale transaction
        concerning the subject immovable property. The petitioner,
        as in the instant case, had bought a new stamp paper and
        had gone on to consummate the sale transaction qua the
        very same property.
        26. I may also indicate that insofar as other cases cited
        by Mr. Ramesh Singh are concerned, they are, in fact, not
        applicable to the facts and circumstances arising in the
        instant case. One cannot but state that the proposition of
        law as enunciated in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs.
        Union of India & Ors.; State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs.
        Swanstone Multiplex Cinema Pvt. Ltd. and Cooch-Behar
        Contractors’ Association and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal
        & Ors. still hold the field.
        26.1 However, dealing with the last case first i.e. Cooch-
        Behar Contractors’ Association case, that was a case
        where the appellants before the Supreme Court sought
        exclusion of certain components, which had been included
        in the expression “contractual transfer price”, which in turn,
        determined the tax that an assessee had to pay under
        works contract. In this context, the Court was called upon
        to interpret, inter alia, the provisions of Section 6D of the
        Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as amended by
        West Bengal Act 4 of 1984. The Court ruled that nothing
        could be excluded from contractual transfer price over
        and above that was indicated in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-
        section 2 of Section 6D of the aforementioned Act. It is in
        this context that the Court observed that Section 6D was a
        self contained provision. In my view, there is nothing in the
        judgment, which would help the cause of the respondents.
        26.2 Likewise, the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered
        in State of Maharashtra & Ors. case, does not support the
        respondent’s case. This was a case where the respondent
        company, which was the owner of multiplex cinema theatre
        had collected entertainment tax at rate of 45% during the
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                             1195

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


           period when it was either not liable to pay such tax or was
           required to pay tax at a concessional rate i.e., 25%. The
           State attempted to reclaim the benefit, which had accrued
           to the respondent company as they had recovered excess
           entertainment tax from the cinema goers. Consequently,
           demand notices were issued by the State in that behalf.
           The demand notices issued were challenged. The High
           Court allowed the writ petition. The Supreme Court reversed
           the decision of the High Court.
           26.3 While doing so, the Supreme Court made an interesting
           distinction between the doctrine of unjust enrichment as
           opposed to doctrine of retention. While drawing a distinction
           between the two concepts, the Supreme Court noticed
           several judgments, including the judgment rendered by the
           Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case. Pertinently, the Court,
           while allowing the appeal of the State, directed the State to
           remit undue benefit obtained by the respondent company
           to a voluntary or charitable organization, since, the State
           during that period, could not have levied or collected the
           tax from the respondent company. This aspect of the
           matter is reflected in Paragraphs 32, 33, 36 & 37. For the
           sake of convenience, the same are extracted hereafter:
                “…32. In a given case, this Court in exercise of its
                jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
                of India may also issue other directions, as has
                been done in Indian Banks’ Assn. v. Devkala
                Consultancy Service [(2004) 11 SCC 1] in a
                similar situation where it was difficult for the
                Court to direct refund of a huge amount to a
                large number of depositors from whom the bank
                had illegally collected, this Court directed that the
                amount be spent for the benefit of the disabled
                in terms of the provisions of the Persons with
                Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
                Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. This
                Court may take recourse to such a procedure
                as the State also having granted exemption was
                not entitled to collect the duty. In other words,
                it having granted an exemption, was not legally
1196                                                   [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                 Supreme Court Reports


        entitled thereto. We think that it would be a
        better course, as stricto sensu, Article 296 of
        the Constitution is not applicable.
        33. We are passing this order keeping in view
        the peculiar situation as in either event it was
        cinema-goers who had lost a huge amount. It
        would be travesty of justice if the owners of the
        cinema theatre become eligible to appropriate
        such a huge amount for their own benefit. To
        the aforementioned extent, doctrine of unjust
        enrichment may be held to be applicable. A
        person who unjustly enriches himself cannot
        be permitted to retain the same for its benefit
        except enrichment. Where it becomes entitled
        thereto the doctrine of unjust enrichment can be
        invoked irrespective of any statutory provisions.

           xxx                  xxx                   xxx
        36. It may be true that hereat we are not
        concerned with refund of tax but then for
        enforcement of legal principles, this Court may
        direct a party to divest itself of the money or
        benefits, which in justice, equity and good
        conscience belongs to someone else. It must
        be directed to restitute that part of the benefit
        to which it was not entitled to.
        37. We, therefore, direct that the State shall
        realise the amount to the extent the respondent
        had unjustly enriched itself and pay the same
        to a voluntary or a charitable organisation,
        which according to it is a reputed civil society
        organisation and had been rendering good
        services to any section of the disadvantaged
        people and in particular women and children.
        We would request the Hon’ble the Chief Minister
        of the State to take up the responsibility in this
        behalf so that full, proper and effective utilisation
        of the amount in question is ensured…”
                                      (Emphasis is mine)
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                             1197

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


           26.4 Insofar as Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case is concerned,
           the Supreme Court was considering the scope, ambit and
           extent to which doctrine of unjust enrichment would apply,
           the Court laid down various propositions of law, which I
           need not advert to as none of them, in my opinion, would
           help the cause of the respondent.
           26.5 I may, however, indicate that the Court, inter alia, ruled
           that where the provisions of a statute provided for refund,
           the refund, if any, would be granted in accordance with
           the statute. The Court was, amongst others, considering
           the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excises Act and
           Section 27 of the Customs Act.
           26.6 Likewise, Sri Maganti Suryanarayana case cited
           for the proposition, that there is no inherent jurisdiction
           vested in the Collector of Stamps to grant refund as he is
           a creature of the statute or the judgment rendered in Govt.
           of A.P. & Ors. vs. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) case, cited for the
           proposition that there is no equity in tax are propositions,
           which have held the field for so long that they appear to
           be cast in stone. Having said so, the foregoing discussion
           would show that these propositions would not impede the
           cause of the petitioners, given the situation obtaining in
           the instant case.”
8.   Thus, in paragraph 19, the learned Single Judge posed a question
     for his consideration whether the circumstances in which the refund
     was prayed for by the appellants herein, would be a relevant
     consideration for ordering refund of the said amount. In other words,
     the learned Single Judge asked a question to himself whether
     the court, in such circumstances, should fold its hands and deny
     relief to a person, who has lost the e-stamp paper, only because
     the draftsman has omitted the use of such expression explicitly in
     the Statute.
9.   After an exhaustive discussion on various aspects of the matter, the
     learned Single Judge thereafter proceeded to draw a fine distinction
     between the ‘doctrine of unjust enrichment’ as opposed to ‘doctrine
     of retention’. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
     petition in part.
1198                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


10. The appellants herein being dissatisfied with non-grant of interest
    on the sum of Rs. 28,10,000/- preferred Letters Patent Appeal.
    The appeal Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal holding
    as under:-
          “7. As no arguments were canvassed by the appellant
          (original petitioner) before the learned Single Judge for
          payment of interest, the said issue has not been decided.
          For the first time, this issue of payment of interest upon
          Rs.28,10,000/- has been raised. Hence, we see no reason
          to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. The principal amount
          has already been ordered to be refunded. Petitioner can
          file a review application if he has argued and the point
          is not decided about interest upon the principal amount
          before the learned Single Judge.
          8. Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the
          issue of interest was never raised by the appellant(original
          petitioner) when the writ petition was argued by the original
          petitioner.”
11. The appeal Court seems to have taken the view that the issue as
    regards payment of interest was sought to be raised for the first
    time in appeal and had not been seriously raised before the learned
    Single Judge.
12. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellants are here
    before this Court with the present appeal.
13. We heard Mr. Abhishek Puri, the learned counsel appearing for the
    appellants and Ms. Jyoti Mehandiratta, the learned counsel appearing
    for the respondents.
14. The short point that falls for our consideration is whether in the facts
    and circumstances of the case, the appellants herein are entitled to
    claim interest on the refunded amount of Rs.28,10,000/- referred to
    above.
15. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
    that there is no provision in the statute for the payment of interest
    on refund of the amount of the e-stamp paper that was lost by
    the appellants herein, is without any merit. The subject General
    Mandamus is a salutary advancement of the law, calculated to
    insulate and protect a citizen from unfair treatment by the State.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                         1199

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


16. The concept of awarding interest on delayed payment has been
    explained by this Court in the case of Authorised Officer Karnataka
    Bank v. M/s R.M.S. Granites Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.
    12294 of 2024, we quote the following observations:-
           “It may be mentioned that there is misconception about
           interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all,
           but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A
           had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years ago, but he
           offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the
           interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount
           to B ten years ago, B would have invested that amount
           somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of
           that A has kept that amount with himself and earned
           interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that
           A should not only pay back the principal amount but also
           the interest thereon to B. [See: Alok Shanker Pandey v.
           Union of India : AIR 2007 SC 1198.]”
17. Thus, when a person is deprived of the use of his money to which
    he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be compensated for the
    deprivation which may be called interest or compensation. Interest is
    paid for the deprivation of the use of money in general terms which
    has returned or compensation for the use or retention by a person
    of a sum of money belonging to other.
18. As per Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edn.): “interest” is the compensation
    fixed by agreement or allowed by law for use or detention of money or
    for the loss of money of one who is entitled to its use, especially, the
    amount owned to a lender in return for the use of the borrowed money.
19. As per Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases (5th edn.):
    interest means, inter alia, compensation paid by the borrower to the
    lender for deprivation of the use of his money.
20. In the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of
    Orissa v. G.C. Roy, (1992) 1 SCC 508, a Constitution Bench
    of this Court opined that a person deprived of use of money to
    which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated
    for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest,
    compensation or damages. This is also the principle of Section 34
    of the Civil Procedure Code.
1200                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


21. The essence of interest as held in the case of Lord Wright in Riches v.
    Westminister Bank Ltd., 1947 (1) ALL ER 469, at page 472, is that it
    is a payment, which becomes due because the creditor has not had
    his money at the due date. It may be recorded either as representing
    the profit he might have made if he had had the use of the money,
    or, conversely, the loss he suffered because he had not that use.
22. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Sham Lal Narula,
    AIR 1963 Punjab 411, a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
    articulated the concept of interest as under:-
          “The words ‘interest’ and ‘compensation’ are sometimes
          used interchangeably and on other occasions they have
          distinct connotation. “Interest” in general terms is the return
          or compensation for the use or retention by one person
          of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. In
          its narrow sense, ‘interest’ is understood to mean the
          amount which one has contracted to pay for use of
          borrowed money. ……… In whatever category “interest”
          in a particular case may be put, it is a consideration
          paid either for the use of money or for forbearance in
          demanding it, after it has fallen due, and thus, it is a
          charge for the use or forbearance of money. In this sense,
          it is a compensation allowed by law or fixed by parties, or
          permitted by custom or usage, for use of money belonging
          to another, or for the delay in paying money after it has
          become payable.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

23. The appeal filed against aforesaid decision was dismissed by this
    Court in Sham Lal Narula Dr. v. CIT, AIR 1964 SC 1878.
24. In the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004)
    174 ELT 422, (paras 15 and 16), a Division Bench of the Allahabad
    High Court explained the concept of interest as under:-
          “15. We may mention that we are passing the direction for
          interest since interest is the normal accretion on capital.
          Often there is misconception about interest. Interest is not
          a penalty or punishment at all.
          16. For instance, if A had to pay a certain sum of money to
          B at a particular time, but he pays it after a delay of several
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1201

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


           years, the result will be that the money remained with A
           and he would have earned interest thereon by investing
           it somewhere. Had he paid that amount at the time when
           it was payable then B would have invested it somewhere,
           and earned interest thereon. Hence, if a person has illegally
           retained some amount of money then he should ordinarily
           be directed to pay not only the principal amount but also
           the interest earned thereon.
           Money doubles every six years (because of compound
           interest). Rs. hundred in the year 1990 would become
           Rs. two hundred in the year 1996 and it will become Rs.
           400 in the year 2002. Hence, if A had to pay B a sum of
           rupees 100 in the year 1990 and he pays that amount only
           in the year 2002, the result will be that A has pocketed
           Rs. 300 with himself. This clearly cannot be justified
           because had he paid that amount to B in the year 1990,
           B would be having Rs. 400 in the year 2002 instead of
           having only Rs. 100/-. Hence, ordinarily interest should
           always be awarded whenever any amount is detained
           or realized by someone, otherwise the person receiving
           the amount after considerable delay would be losing
           the entire interest thereon which will be pocketed by the
           person who managed the delay, it is for this reason that
           we have ordered for payment of interest alongwith the
           amount realized as export pass fee.”

     INTEREST IS NORMAL ACCRETION ON CAPITAL
25. If on facts of a case, the doctrine of restitution is attracted, interest
    should follow. Restitution in its etymological sense means restoring
    to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree or
    order what has been lost to him in execution of decree or order of
    the Court or in direct consequence of a decree or order. The term
    “restitution” is used in three senses, firstly, return or restoration of
    some specific thing to its rightful owner or status, secondly, the
    compensation for benefits derived from wrong done to another and,
    thirdly, compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another.
26. In Hari Chand v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) AWC 316, the Allahabad High
    Court dealing with similar controversy in a stamp matter held that
1202                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     the payment of interest is a necessary corollary to the retention of
     the money to be returned under order of the appellate or revisional
     authority. The High Court directed the State to pay interest @ 8% for
     the period, the money was so retained i.e. from the date of deposit
     till the date of actual repayment/refund.
27. In the case of O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai,
    JT 2007 (10) SC 76, (para 6), the facts were that the assessment
    orders passed in the Customs Act creating huge demands were
    ultimately set aside by this Court. However, during pendency of
    appeals, a sum of Rs. 54,72,87,536/- was realized by way of custom
    duties and interest thereon. In such circumstances, an application
    was filed before this Court to direct the respondent to pay interest
    on the aforesaid amount w.e.f. the date of recovery till the date of
    payment. The appellants relied upon the judgment in the case of
    South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. v. State of M.P., (2003) 8 SCC 648. This
    Court explained the principles of restitution in the case of O.N.G.C.
    Ltd. (supra) as under:-
          “Appellant is a public sector undertaking. Respondent is
          the Central Government. We agree that in principle as also
          in equity the appellant is entitled to interest on the amount
          deposited on application of principle of restitution. In the
          facts and circumstances of this case and particularly having
          regard to the fact that the amount paid by the appellant has
          already been refunded, we direct that the amount deposited
          by the appellant shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
          annum. Reference in this connection may be made to Pure
          Helium Indian (P) Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission, JT
          2003 (Suppl. 2) SC 596 and Mcdermott International Inc. v.
          Burn Standard Co. Ltd. JT 2006 (11) SC 376.”
                                                (Emphasis supplied)

     COMPENSATION:
28. The word ‘Compensation’ has been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s
    Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition 2005, page 918 as follows:-
          “An act which a Court orders to be done, or money which
          a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or
          omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1203

       Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.


           that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value
           for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury;
           the consideration or price of a privilege purchased some
           thing given or obtained as an equivalent the rendering
           of an equivalent in value or amount; an equivalent given
           for property taken or for an injury done to another; the
           giving back an equivalent in either money which is
           but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise
           conferred; a recompense in value a recompense given for
           a thing received recompense for the whole injury suffered
           remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every
           description remuneration for loss of time, necessary
           expenditures, and for permanent disability if such be the
           result; remuneration for the injury directly, and proximately
           caused by at breach of contract or duty; remuneration or
           wages given to an employee or officer.”
29. In the case of Union of India through Director of Income Tax v. Tata
    Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335, this Court held that when the
    collection is illegal, the Revenue is obliged to refund such amount
    with interest as money so deposited was retained and enjoyed
    by it. No discrimination can be shown between the assessee and
    Revenue in paying interest on the refund of tax. Money received and
    retained without right, carries with it the right to interest. There being
    no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund
    of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, the Government
    cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors
    lawful monies with accrued interest for the period of undue retention
    of such monies. Obligation to refund money received and retained
    without right implies and carries with in the right to interest. The
    relevant observations are as under:-
           “Providing for payment of interest in case of refund of
           amounts paid as tax or deemed tax or advance tax is
           a method now statutorily adopted by fiscal legislation to
           ensure that the aforesaid amount of tax which has been
           duly paid in prescribed time and provisions in that behalf
           form part of the recovery machinery provided in a taxing
           Statute. Refund due and payable to the assessee is debt-
           owed and payable by the Revenue. The Government,
           there being no express statutory provision for payment
1204                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


             of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected
             by the Revenue, cannot shrug off its apparent obligation
             to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with the
             accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such
             monies. The State having received the money without
             right and having retained and used it, is bound to make
             the party good, just as an individual would be under like
             circumstances. The obligation to refund money received
             and retained without right implies and carries with it the
             right to interest. Whenever money has been received by a
             party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the
             right to interest follows, as a matter of course.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

30. Considering the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while
    taking the view that the respondents could not have declined to
    refund the amount and the fact that the retention of the said amount
    was for a long time and further the appellants were left with no other
    option but to approach the High Court, we are of the view that the
    appellants are entitled to have interest on Rs.28,10,000/- as under:-

            Breakup of the Amount received and accrued interest
     Principal Amount : Rs. 28,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Ten
     Thousand Only)

        Period              No. Amounts due     Rate of    Interest amount
                            of                  Interest
                            days
        20.08.2018          558 Rs.             8% p.a.    Rs. 3,43,666.85
        (date of Judgment   days 28,10,000/-
        passed by Ld.
        Single Judge of
        the Delhi High
        Court)
                 till
        29.02.2020
        (Receipt of part
        payment of Rs.
        25,29,000/-)
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                                  1205

          Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.



         30.02.2020              1470 Rs. 2,81,000/-   8% p.a.     Rs. 90,535.89
                 till            days

         08.03.2024 (Date
         of Fixed Deposit
         @ 6.5% p.a.
         created by the
         Delhi High Court
         Registry upon
         deposit of DD by
         Respondent)
         09.03.2024              153 Rs. 2,81,000/-    1.5% p.a.   Rs. 1,766.84
                 till            days                  (after
                                                       subtracting
         09.08.2024                                    interest
         (Date of dismissal                            rate of
         of Application                                the FD
         for modification                              created
         and direction for                             by Delhi
         release of balance                            High Court
         amount deposited                              Registry)
         Total interest amount                                     Rs. 4,35,968.58/-
                                                                   (Rs. Four Lakh
                                                                   Thirty Five
                                                                   Thousand Nine
                                                                   Hundred Sixty
                                                                   Eight and Paise
                                                                   Fifty Eight Only)

31. The respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,35,968/-
    (Rs. Four Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Eight Only)
    towards interest within a period of two months from today without fail.
32. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
    application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)