State of West Bengal v. B. K.

Mondal & sons (AIR 1962 SC 779)

Essentials:

1. The act must be lawful. This includes the cases where the person while doing an act is under the
impression that he would receive remuneration for his services. The act must not be intended to be
done gratuitously and the other party must have enjoyed the benefit of such an act. However the
court will not compel a person to pay for services which have been thrust upon against him against
his will.
2. The person must have actually supplied goods or rendered services
3. Services should have been received without any request
4. The doing the act must not have intended to do it gratuitously
5. The person for whom the act is done must have enjoyed the benefit of it.

Person can be – individual, body corporate, government, Municipality or any corporation.

Union of India v. Sita Ram Jaiswal (AIR 1977 SC 329)

3 ingredients to support the cause of action under section 70 are

1. The goods are to be delivered lawfully or anything has to be done for the other person lawfully
2. The things done or goods are delivered is so done or delivered not intending to do so gratuitously
3. The person to whom the goods are delivered enjoys the benefit thereof.

V. R. Subramanyam v. B. Thayappa AIR 1966 SC 1034

If a party to contract has rendered service to other not intending to do so gratuitously and the other person
has obtained some benefit, the former is entitled to some compensation for the value of the services
rendered by him, even if the he failed to prove an express agreement in that behalf.

Ram Tuhul Singh v. Biseswar Loll Sahoo 1875 L.R. 21 A. 131

It is not in every case in which a man has benefitted by the money of another that an obligation to repay the
money arises. To support such a suit there must be an obligation, express or implied to repay.

Upendra v. Naba (25 BAL W. N. 813)

Where two co-owners of a sanitary tank were sued criminally for ignoring an order of the corporation to fill
up the tank and one of them filled up the tank and sued the other for contributions, it was held that the
other person was liable to pay the contribution as the tank was lawfully filled up without intending to do
gratuitously.

Damodar Mudaliar V. Secretary of State for India (1894-18 Mad. 88)

The Government effected certain repairs to the tank necessarily for its preservation which irrigated eleven
villages, some of which were Zamindars villages. The government had no intentions to do so gratuitously of
the Zamindars the Zamindars enjoyed the benefit thereof. It was held that the Zamindars were liable to
contribute to the expenses of the repairs.

Governor General in Council v. Madura Municipality (15 BLR 1927)

The Railway Company under the direction of the Provincial Government agreed to widen the culvert and
charge either the Government or Municipality.
After the Work was completed, the Railway Company filed a suit against the Municipality. The court
although held that Railway did not do the work gratuitously, the Municipality dod not benefit from the work.
But the Government will be charged.

Jessore Loan Co. v. Gopal 1926 Cal. W.N.66

The amount of compensation is determined by at the market price of the goods supplied. Reasonable
compensation must be paid for the work done. Liability to contribute is strictly within the purview of this
section. But the court may allow contribution, if the claim appears to be either just or equitable

Union of India v. Sita ram Jaiswal AIR 1997 SC 329

Word restoration in the section does not mean that the defendant would have to restore the goods to the
plaintiff by delivering the same to plaintiff. As long as there is intimation by the defendant to the plaintiff
that the plaintiff can take, back the goods the defendant envces intention of restoration