https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168195 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any refund of the deposits made for the rights to collect forest produce. The contracts were deemed void for non-compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution, and the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence to support a claim for restitution under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jan 2015 11:32:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168195 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any refund of the deposits made for the rights to collect forest produce. The contracts were deemed void for non-compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution, and the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence to support a claim for restitution under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168195