Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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