Judgments High Courts & Apex Court

AIR 1996 SC 1204 Para 12:   In the case of Binayak Swain V/s. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi, (AIR 1966 SC 948) this Court considered a case where in execution of an ex parte decree the property of the judgment-debtor was purchased by the decree-holder. The decree was set aside in appeal and the case remanded for fresh disposal. This Court said that the judgment-debtor was entitled to restitution even though ultimately after fresh disposal a decree was passed in favour of the decree-holder. It said that the principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the benefit of the erroneous decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost. This obligation arises automatically on the reversal or modification of the decree and necessarily carries with it the right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroneous decree; and the Court in making restitution is bou...

AIR 1977 SC 1867 Para 2:  We have admitted the appeal and have heard learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the management has, by its conduct, forfeited its right to examine witnesses before the Tribunal. We are not impressed by this argument. The Tribunal refused to allow that management an opportunity to examine witnesses on the sole ground that it has not earlier submitted the written statement. That ground in an industrial matter, would not be sufficient to refuse examination of witnesses when the management later on pressed for it. This is against the principles of natural justice. Sandeep Jalan Advocate https://vakeelkanumber.com/

AIR 2000 SC 855 Para 11:   In the case of   Vasudeva Mudaliar   (ibid) a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court said: "(4) A contract of motor insurance, like marine or accident insurance, is, in essence, one of indemnity. The underwriter, for consideration, guarantees the assured compensation against loss or risks, the limits of the guarantee against accident or loss or damage suffered, totally or partially, being subject to the maximum stipulated in the contract of insurance. Conversely, the rights of the assured are not to profit out of the bargain. It is implied in the very nature of the contract of indemnity that the indemnifier is entitled to re-coupe or minimise the damages he is obliged to pay the assured, by ways and means the assured himself could resort to, in order to reimburse himself against loss caused to him by third party negligence. Such a right of the insurer is, of course, conditional upon his having already indemnified the assured...

AIR 2005 SC 1897 Para 30:   Stated simply, 'unjust enrichment' means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. 'Unjust enrichment' occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience, belong to someone else. Para 31 : The doctrine of 'unjust enrichment', therefore, is that no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' arises where retention of a benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. Para 32:   The juristic basis of the obligation is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely, quasi-contract or the doctrine of restitution. Para 33:   In the leading case of Fibrosa V/s. Fairbairn., 1942 2 AllER 122 Lord Wright stated the principle thus : "...Any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what ha...