MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Software Development Dispute - Madras High Court Upholds 'Unjust Enrichment' Principle: Orders Compensation for Benefited Services in Commercial Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court decreed in favor of Aavanor Systems LLP (Aavanor) in a commercial suit against PERS Enterprises Private Ltd. (PERS), underscoring the principle of unjust enrichment in contractual dealings.

The court emphasized the common law principle of unjust enrichment, observing that when a party benefits from the services of another without intending to do so gratuitously, compensation is warranted. The court ruled that PERS unjustly benefited from Aavanor's services and is thus bound to compensate.

The case involved two suits - C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.63 of 2022 filed by PERS for recovery of advance payments and damages, and C.S.No.128 of 2021 filed by Aavanor for recovery of unpaid dues. PERS accused Aavanor of failing to complete software installation, while Aavanor contended that the software was installed and additional services were rendered upon PERS's request.

Justice Abdul Quddhose, in his detailed judgment, noted, "When a person benefited from the services of another, has done those services non gratuitously then the person who has enjoyed the benefit of the additional services must compensate the person who has rendered the additional services." The court found that Aavanor completed the installation and provided additional services, as evident from the email correspondences and invoices.

The court observed, "The weight of evidence, both oral and documentary evidence, placed on record by Aavanor, far outweighs the weight of evidence produced through a person who does not have personal knowledge of the contractual relationship between Aavanor and PERS."

The court decreed that PERS is to pay Aavanor Rs.61,28,320/- with 6% interest per annum from January 19, 2018, till realization. The suit by PERS was dismissed, and they were directed to bear the costs of both suits.

Date of Decision: 19th February 2024

PERS Enterprises Private Ltd.  Vs Aavanor Systems LLP

Similar News