Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan 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

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    06 October 2026 10:09 AM
Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court
  • by sayum
    06 October 2026 10:08 AM
Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    06 October 2026 10:08 AM
Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court
  • by sayum
    06 October 2026 7:33 AM
Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court
  • by sayum
    06 October 2026 7:32 AM
Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    06 October 2026 7:31 AM
Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court