https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189639 Money received in connection with a proposed property transaction was held recoverable on restitutionary principles even without direct privity of contract. The recipient could not retain the benefit merely by denying a contractual link once the payment was shown to be non-gratuitous and connected to an authorised negotiation for sale. The analysis relied on unjust enrichment and the statutory obligations reflected in Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which require compensation for non-gratuitous benefit and repayment of money received by mistake or under coercion. The defence of absence of privity therefore failed, and repayment was required. en-us Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:00:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189639 Money received in connection with a proposed property transaction was held recoverable on restitutionary principles even without direct privity of contract. The recipient could not retain the benefit merely by denying a contractual link once the payment was shown to be non-gratuitous and connected to an authorised negotiation for sale. The analysis relied on unjust enrichment and the statutory obligations reflected in Sections 70 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which require compensation for non-gratuitous benefit and repayment of money received by mistake or under coercion. The defence of absence of privity therefore failed, and repayment was required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189639