Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment - Indian Laws - General

Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment - 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. 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. xxx xxx xxx ........................ it is clear that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is based on equity and has been accepted and applied in several cases. ... In Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs [ 2005 (3) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT], The doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutory doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. The power of the Court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is, however, inapplicable to the State. State represents the people of the country. No one can speak of the people being unjustly enriched. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1996 (12) TMI 50 - Supreme Court 118. The Law of Restitution is founded upon the principle of unjust enrichment . As stated by the learned authors, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Gareth Jones in the book The Law of Restitution (3rd Edn.) 1986, It presupposes three things : first, that the defendant has been enriched by the receipt of a benefit; secondly, that he has been so enriched at the plaintiff's expense; and thirdly, that it would be unjust to allow him to retain the benefit. These three subordinate principles are closely interrelated. (page 16). [See also Cheshire Fifoot Furmston's Law of Contract (12th Edn.) 1991, page 649.]