Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion
Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion. A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872.
A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.
Illustrations
(a) A and B jointly owe 100 rupees to C, A alone pays the amount to C, and B, not knowing this fact, pays 100 rupees over again to C. C is bound to repay the amount to B.
(b) A railway company refuses to deliver up certain goods to the consignee, except upon the payment of an illegal charge for carriage. The consignee pays the sum charged in order to obtain the goods. He is entitled to recover so much of the charge as was illegally excessive.
Section 72, The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Maharashtra v. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema (P) Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-5.pdf 2009-07-27. S.B. Sinha. DATE-CHECK flagged WRONG DOCUMENT on 2008-10-21 HC / 2005-12-05 / 2005-06-24 demand-notice dates (false positive); body is the named REPORTABLE SLP (C) 7853/2009 Sinha judgment on unjust enrichment. A multiplex that collected full entertainment duty from patrons during a statutory exemption cannot retain the excess; s.72 Contract Act restitution / unjust enrichment requires it to be restored (Mafatlal). Bombay Entertainments Duty Act has no CENTRAL slug — map Contract 72 only.
On this section: Money paid or collected by mistake or without authority must be restored under s.72; a multiplex that realised full entertainment duty during an exemption cannot retain it as unjust enrichment (Swanstone).
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Even though the High Court found nothing wrong with either the policy or the freight charge realized, and held both to be lawful, yet it directed refund in view of principles of equity by taking recourse to Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 98. Thus, from the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that there exists a very fine & clear distinction between an overcharge and an illegal charge, and that Section 106 sub-section (3) of the Act, 1989 only applies when the claim is for a refund of an overcharge, for all …
-
… has failed to establish that the Supervision Consultancy Agreement executed between the Respondent & the Supervision Consultant referred to by it, is applicable to the Contract between the Claimant and the Respondent and binds the Claimant in any manner. xviii. The Respondent has also relied on provisions of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with liability of a person to whom money is paid or thing delivered, by mistake or coercion. The principle of unjust enrichment requires restitution. xix. Therefore, even after considering the plea of the Respondent under Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act …
-
… Admittedly, 7½ % so charged by the government was illegal and was realised under a mistake and without authority of law. Therefore, a suit was brought for refund of the amount so charged. 51. It was in view of the above facts in a suit for refund of the amount excessively charged in a suit based upon Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, which provides that where money is paid by mistake to a person, he is liable to repay or return it, the court applied Section 17(1)(c) of The Limitation Act, 1963, and held that the limitation would run from the date of the knowledge of such mistake. 52. The aforesaid case was one …
Questions about Section 72
What have the courts held on Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act?
State of Maharashtra v. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema (P) Ltd. (27 Jul 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Money paid or collected by mistake or without authority must be restored under s.72; a multiplex that realised full entertainment duty during an exemption cannot retain it as unjust enrichment (Swanstone).
How do I find court cases under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Contract Act 72, section 72 Contract Act, section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. People searching for it also type indian contract act 72 and contract act section 68 to 72. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with State of Maharashtra v. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema (P) Ltd. (27 Jul 2009).
When did Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act come into force?
Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, cited as Contract Act 72, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 25 Apr 1872. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract1822 words
- 23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not596 words
- 74. Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for577 words
- 28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceeding void512 words
- 25. Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in writing and registered, or is a promise to compensate for something done, or is a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation law423 words
- 16. "Undue influence" defined397 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.