Unjust Enrichment - Not Always a Remedy

I'm so done with people saying unjust enrichment is always a remedy in case of unilateral mistakes. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly says it's only applicable when a person has retained a benefit which they are not entitled to. Just because a contract is void or voidable, it doesn't mean the innocent party will get a windfall. For example, in P.N. Aggarwal (Supreme Court case, 1993), the court ruled that the buyer was not entitled to refund when the contract was deemed void for want of consideration - no unjust enrichment! So, let's not overstretch Section 27.