Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: chennai Year: 1946 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.037 seconds)

Jan 15 1946 (PC)

K.P.Rm. Kuppan Chettiar Alias Kadiresan Chettiar Vs. Sp.R.M.Rm. Ramasw ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-15-1946

Reported in : (1946)1MLJ383

..... page 401 we find this:in some cases it is a question of fact whether the circumstances are such as to raise the implication of a contract for indemnity; but in cases like the one now before your lordships when a person is requested to exercise a statutory duty for the benefit of the ..... defendant. in fact the plaintiffs asked the defendant to indemnify them and the defendant did not reply and therefore there was no case of an express contract of indemnity. all that happened was that at the request of the defendant, the plaintiffs delivered possession of the trucks to the defendant. it ultimately turned out ..... duty to indemnify arising from an assumed promise by a person to do that which, under the circumstances, he ought to do. the right to indemnity need not arise by contract; it may (to) give other instances) arise by statute; it may arise upon the notion of a request made under circumstances from which ..... by the judicial committee and on page 182 their lordships say this:a right to indemnify generally arises from contract express or implied, but it is not confined to cases of contract. a right to indemnity exists where the relation between the parties is such that either in law or in equity there is an ..... law in similar terms. at page 272, cotton, l.j., expressed himself thus after dealing with the cases of express contract and trustees and cestui que trust:then, is there any ground of indemnity? of course, if a requests b to do a thing for him and b in consequence of his doing that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1946 (PC)

K.P. Rm. Kuppan Chettiar Alias Kadiresan Chettiar Vs. Sp. R.M. Rm. Ram ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-15-1946

Reported in : AIR1946Mad472

..... lord chancellor and at page 401 we find this:in some cases it is a question of fact whether the circumstances are such as to raise the implication of a contract for indemnity; but in cases like the one now before your lordships, when a person is requested to exercise a statutory duty for the benefit of the person making the request ..... the part of the defendant. in fact the plaintiffs asked the defendant to indemnify them and the defendant did not reply and therefore there was no ease of an express contract of indemnity. all that happened was that at the request of the defendant, the plaintiffs delivered possession of the trucks to the defendant. it ultimately turned out to be tortious in ..... . the law was discussed by the judicial committee and on p. 182 their lordships say this:a right to indemnify generally arises from contract express or implied, but it is not confined to cases of contract. a right to indemnity exists where the relation between the parties is such that either in law or in equity there is an obligation upon the one ..... of appeal laid the law in similar terms. at page 272 cotton l.j., expressed himself thus after dealing with the cases of express contract and trustees and cestui que trust:then, is there any ground of indemnity? of course, if a. requests b to do a thing for him, and b in consequence of his doing that act is subject to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1946 (PC)

Vajapeyajula Venkateswarlu and anr. Vs. Ragadamilli Viraswami and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-17-1946

Reported in : (1946)1MLJ291

..... right to relinquish is absolute, subject to his compliance with the formalities required by the section and the right of the landholder to institute a suit before the collector for indemnity against loss of rent, for the revenue year next following the date of the relinquishment, unless the tenant had given notice of his intention to relinquish before the ist april ..... . section 187(1)(i) expressly states that the right of relinquishment cannot be taken away by a. contract between the landholder and the ryot. therefore the first plaintiff undoubtedly acted within his rights when on the 30th june, 1937, the last day of the revenue year, he gave .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1946 (PC)

Vajapayajula Venkateswarlu and anr. Vs. Regadimilli Veeraswami and ors ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-17-1946

Reported in : AIR1946Mad461

..... right to relinquish is absolute, subject to his compliance with the formalities required by the section and the right of the landholder to institute a suit before the collector for indemnity against loss of rent for the revenue year next following the date of the relinquishment, unless the tenant had given notice of his intention to relinquish before 1st april. section ..... 187(1)(f) expressly states that the right of relinquishment can-not be taken away by a contract between the land holder and the ryot. therefore plaintiff 1 undoubtedly acted within his rights when on 30th june 1937, the last day of the revenue year, he gave notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1946 (PC)

Vastiram Manmal and Co., by Its Manager, Manmal Vs. T.S. Ramaswamy Iye ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-28-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad99; (1946)2MLJ270

..... 10 on the reverse of ex. p. 1 must be interpreted to mean what it actually says, i.e., that legal proceedings arising out of contracts and contracts alone should be instituted in madras courts. thirdly, he argued that since no part of the cause of action arose in madras, the stipulation in condition ..... district munsiff's court, we must have regard to the actual wording used. the respondent was not unaware of the distinction between an offer and a contract, as will be evident from the fact that on the reverse of the conditions is a space for noting the number of the offer as well ..... on a reasonable interpretation of condition no. 10 the parties were bound to have this dispute decided by the madras court, whether there was a completed contract or not.2. the learned advocate for the appellant has raised three points. the first is that the learned district judge should not have directed the ..... under consideration. it may be true that the respondent was anxious to have all matters arising out of offers as well as contracts decided in madras courts for reasons of convenience; but the question is whether the appellant also understood that the restriction applied to offers as well as ..... his suit in any court having jurisdiction. the district munsiff went into the question whether there was a completed contract or whether, there was only an offer, and held that there was no completed contract. he then accepted the argument of the plaintiff that condition no. 10 did not apply to offers and decreed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1946 (PC)

K.S. Sundaram Aiyar Vs. Ittichathara Valia Mannadiar, Karnavan and Man ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-24-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad197; (1946)2MLJ322

..... ; and secondly, that the mortgagor should be liable to pay the cost of such improvements.18. the learned advocate-general next argued that ' a contract to the contrary ' should be implied in the circumstances, namely that the mortgage comprised properties situated both in coimbatore and in malabar and that a ..... of d. w. 1. even assuming that this is the correct translation of those words, it is impossible to read into the paragraph any contract that the improvements that may be made by the mortgagee should be paid for by the mortgagor at the time of redemption. on the other hand ..... to the property in this case fall within sub-section (2) of section 63-a. the only question therefore is whether there is a contract to the contrary which entitles the mortgagee to be reimbursed in the expenses incurred by him in making the improvements. no doubt section 63-a ..... mortgaged property in possession of the mortgagee has, during the continuance of mortgage, been improved, the mortgagor, upon redemption, shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, be entitled to the improvement; and the mortgagor shall not, save only in cases provided for in sub-section (a), be liable ..... 59 and tadavendra bhattu v. srinivasa babhu : air1925mad62 . he can obtain compensation or damages in a properly framed suit against the mortgagee for breach of the contract. see abdul hashim sahib v. kadir batcha sahib : (1918)35mlj740 . in the case of a usufructuary mortgage, if the mortgagor has not received full .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1946 (PC)

S. Raja Chetty and anr. Vs. Jagannathadas Govindas and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-16-1946

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ694

..... were not aware of the act. though the learned advocate attempted to contend that it would be against public policy to permit the parties to contract out of this statute, he did not make good this contention by either citation of authority or otherwise. in this connection we have found the judgment ..... .12. mr. ramachandra aiyar argued that there is no reference to the act in the lease deed and therefore it cannot be said that they contracted out of it. merely because there was no reference to it we cannot presume that the parties or their legal advisers who evidently prepared the lease ..... that the landlord is entitled to re-enter upon the demised premises. in the absence of authority that it is not permissible for the parties to contract themselves out of the provisions of this act we hold that they can agree to be governed by terms and conditions which may be inconsistent with ..... the provisions of the statute in so far as they are inconsistent. incidentally the learned counsel also argued that the parties did not contemplate that the contract of lease which they were entering into was to be governed by the provisions of madras act xv of 1946. in fact having regard to the ..... . the main argument addressed on behalf of the lessees was that parties were aware of madras act xv of 1946 and by this lease they had contracted out of the statute and therefore the application was not maintainable. the rent controller was evidently not inclined to uphold this contention. there was an appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1946 (PC)

P.V. Muthuswami Ayyar Vs. A. Velammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-18-1946

Reported in : (1946)2MLJ273

..... plaintiff is demanding. it is only after she or her lessees utilise the water from the well that they would be liable under section 70 of the contract act.4. the defendant was therefore entitled to succeed, although on a different ground from that on which the lower court dismissed the suit. the petition ..... provided that the other ingredients of section 70 are to be found.3. in order that the plaintiff should succeed in the claim under section 70 of the contract act he would have to prove (1) that he had repaired the well for the defendant; (2) that he did not intend to do so gratuitously ..... benefited by them. the suit was, however, dismissed, it being held that although the defendants had benefited, they were not liable under section 70 of the contract act. it seems to me that this is no longer good law in view of the full bench decision of this court in srirama raja v. secretary ..... supported by some observations in viswanatha vijaya kumara bangaroo v. r.g. orr (1917) 45 i.c.786, to this effect:section 70 of the contract act does not apply to cases where a person does an act for his own benefit and that act incidentally benefits his neighbour or any other person. ..... that she could not contribute. the petitioner thereupon completed the work and filed this suit for contribution from the respondent, claiming under section 70 of the contract, act. the lower court held that although the respondent stood to benefit by the work and that the petitioner did not intend to do the work gratuitously .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1946 (PC)

P.L. Rangiah Chettiar Vs. Parthasarathy Iyengar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-29-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad258; (1946)2MLJ401

..... q..b.d. 149 and tolhurst v. associated portland cement manufacturers (1900), associated portland cement manufacturers (1900) v. tolhurst 1903 a.c. 414 : but a contract that certain acts shall be done or goods supplied, without regard to the persons engaged, is assignable; and upon performance of all the conditions stipulated for, the ..... permitted. such difficulty as exists has been got over in some of the english cases by taking the view that the very nature of the contract might show that it was not intended that the party should personally perform their obligations or that it was within their contemplation that what was undertaken ..... man for the discharge of his obligation. so is a buyer under an obligation to pay the price. the buyer's right under the contract to get the goods on payment of the price has been held to be capable of assignment because it falls within the definition of an actionable ..... cases, the promisor or his representatives may employ a competent person to perform it. it is obvious that there is nothing personal about such a contract as this. the only objection raised against the assignment is that the seller is under an obligation to deliver the goods and that he cannot compel ..... the legal objection.2. for the appellant reliance is placed on the general proposition of law that a promisor cannot assign his liabilities under a contract and that a promisee cannot be compelled by the promisor or by a third party to accept anyone but the pro-misor as the person liable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1946 (PC)

Nachappa Goundan Vs. Samiappa Goundan and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-04-1946

Reported in : AIR1947Mad18; (1946)2MLJ35

..... be substituted, namely, 61 : a mortgagor who has executed two or more mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, when the principal money of any two or more of the mortgages has become due, be entitled to redeem any one such mortgage separately ..... his case that he was a bona fide purchaser. it will be observed that the subsequent purchaser who takes the property with notice of a prior contract does not get any right as against the prior contractee. the prior contractee when he obtains a decree for specific performance obtains a right which prevails ..... the money with which the earlier mortgages were paid off. when there, is such an intention, we can well say that it amounts to a contract express or implied that the later alienee should be subrogated to the rights of the earlier mortgages which are discharged with the money advanced by him. ..... deed. therefore the case was purely one in which the purchaser cf a half retained that half and still claimed even the amount which he had contracted to pay for his purchase. strictly the question whether a person is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of a mortgagee who has been ..... entire amount. on these facts, inderprasad or his represontativc obviously cannot claim from the defendan1 who owned the other half the amount which he himself had contracted to pay as the sale consideration, inderprasad or his representative was not deprived of what he had purchased by his sale deed. he was still in .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //