Topic

Restitution

Restitution in Indian law refers to the legal remedy of restoring a party to their original position after a wrongful act, contract voidance, or procedural error, often involving return of property, money, or benefits obtained unfairly.

12 articlesLatest September 2026
Condition Precedent | Vendor's Failure to Transfer Shares & Reconstitute Board Relieves Purchaser of Payment Obligation; Refund Upheld Under Section 65 Contract Act : Calcutta HC
Case Law Analysis
|Calcutta High Court

Condition Precedent | Vendor's Failure to Transfer Shares & Reconstitute Board Relieves Purchaser of Payment Obligation; Refund Upheld Under Section 65 Contract Act : Calcutta HC

The Division Bench held that the vendor's obligation to transfer 51% shares and reconstitute the board was a condition precedent, so its non-performance discharged the purchaser's payment duty. The purchaser's SMS communication avoiding the contract was lawful, and the vendor's Rs. 5.51 crore damages claim failed for want of proof. The purchaser's Rs. 1 crore advance was refunded under Section 65 of the Contract Act.

Professional Clearing Members Not Statutorily Required to Verify Client Positions; Restitution Orders Exceeding SEBI Act Powers Set Aside | NSE Futures & Options : SC
|Supreme Court of India

Professional Clearing Members Not Statutorily Required to Verify Client Positions; Restitution Orders Exceeding SEBI Act Powers Set Aside | NSE Futures & Options : SC

The Supreme Court held that professional clearing members in the NSE’s futures-and-options segment have no statutory duty to verify individual client positions and that restitution orders beyond the powers granted by the SEBI Act are ultra vires. As a result, SEBI cannot impose blanket restitution on PCMs, leaving liability with the trading members and their clients.

Unjust Enrichment - 6% Interest on Refunded E-Auction Bid Awarded | Banking & SARFAESI Act : Jharkhand HC
Case Law Analysis
|Jharkhand High Court

Unjust Enrichment - 6% Interest on Refunded E-Auction Bid Awarded | Banking & SARFAESI Act : Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court ordered the bank to pay 6% per annum interest on the Rs 30.90 million e-auction refund, finding that keeping the money without a sale certificate constituted unjust enrichment and that the bank’s undertaking was void for duress. The ruling strengthens restitution duties for banks under the SARFAESI Act and protects auction bidders.

Specific Performance | Interest on Advance Payment Accrues from Date of Receipt Upon Seller's Default : Kerala HC
Case Law Analysis
|Kerala High Court

Specific Performance | Interest on Advance Payment Accrues from Date of Receipt Upon Seller's Default : Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court ruled that when a seller defaults on a sale agreement, the buyer is entitled to interest on the advance payment from the very date it was made, not from the date of filing suit. This corrects unjust enrichment and aligns restitution principles with commercial reality, impacting all property buyers who advance funds under conditional agreements.

Section 144 CPC | Restitution of Possession Mandatory After Ex Parte Decree Set Aside : AP HC Remands for Compliance
Case Law Analysis
|Andhra Pradesh High Court

Section 144 CPC | Restitution of Possession Mandatory After Ex Parte Decree Set Aside : AP HC Remands for Compliance

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that restitution under Section 144 CPC is not discretionary but mandatory when possession is taken pursuant to an ex parte decree later set aside. The court directed fresh orders after examining execution records, reinforcing that parties must be restored to their original position without delay.

Section 420 IPC | Bail Conditional on Installment-Based Deposit of Fraud Proceeds Recognized as Restitution Mechanism : MP HC Indore
Case Law Analysis
|Madhya Pradesh High Court

Section 420 IPC | Bail Conditional on Installment-Based Deposit of Fraud Proceeds Recognized as Restitution Mechanism : MP HC Indore

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set a new precedent by granting bail in a cheating case contingent on the accused depositing Rs. 8.76 lakh in staged installments into a fixed deposit, treating restitution as a condition of liberty. This establishes a measurable, enforceable framework for courts to link bail with financial accountability in economic offenses, affecting prosecutors, accused persons, and bail jurisprudence nationwide.