Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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