DHARMENDRA SHARMA v. M ARUNMOZHI
Contempt Petition: Supreme Court Directs Refund of Stamp Duty Despite State Rules; Upholds Compliance with Prior Orders.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 10
Decision Date: 05-01-2026
List of Laws
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Civil Procedure Code, 1908; U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942; Agra Development Authority Act
- Facts: The petitioner, Dharmendra Sharma, filed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance by respondent no. 1, M. Arunmozhi & Anr., with the Supreme Court's judgment dated 6th September, 2024, which directed the Agra Development Authority (ADA) to refund a certain amount with interest and return non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 3,99,100. While the other directions were complied with, the refund of the stamp paper cost remained outstanding. Instead of refunding, the respondent returned the expired stamp papers. The petitioner then sought a refund from the Assistant Commissioner of Stamps, Agra, which was rejected based on Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, limiting refunds to eight years from purchase.
- Procedural Posture: The case originated from civil appeals already disposed of by the Supreme Court. The petitioner then filed contempt petitions due to alleged non-compliance with the court's directions. The State of Uttar Pradesh was impleaded as respondent no. 2 during the contempt proceedings.
- Issue: Whether the respondent's failure to refund the cost of non-judicial stamp papers constitutes contempt of court, considering the U.P. Stamp Rules limiting refunds to eight years, and whether the State of Uttar Pradesh should be directed to refund the amount.
- Holding: The Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petitions by directing respondent no. 2, the State of Uttar Pradesh, to refund Rs. 3,99,100 to the petitioner upon return of the non-judicial stamp papers. The contempt petitions against respondent no. 1 were closed.
- Reasoning: The Court, without delving into the merits of issues arising after the original civil appeals, noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh, as respondent no. 2, acknowledged the rejection of the refund application was based on Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942. Respondent no. 2 also tendered an unconditional apology and affirmed its duty to implement the Court's directions. Consequently, the Court issued a "direction simpliciter" to the State of Uttar Pradesh to refund the stamp paper cost, effectively overriding the technical objection based on the U.P. Stamp Rules in the interest of justice and compliance with the original order.
🔒 For Members Only