Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: rajasthan Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.014 seconds)

Dec 07 1956 (HC)

Shankerlal Vs. Motilal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-07-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj267

..... promisee, and that the first duty was to the promisor and the second to) the promisee and the right of each joint promisor to claim indemnity did not consist merely of being subrogated to the right of the original promisee for though the promisee's rights may have been released, the ..... the word 'reimbursement' used in section 69 has to be contrasted with words 'contribute' or 'contribution' used in sections 43 and 44 of the contract act. properly speaking, there cannot be any claim for reimbursement among joint promisors, and there would be contribution between them as persons who are equally bound ..... in any way by the release of some of the judgment-debtors by the decree-holder from the performance of the promise unless of course a contract to the contrary between all the parties liable to contribute has been established. it must follow, therefore, that as tansukhlal is not established to ..... cannot have the effect of affecting their liability between themselves on the principle of contribution which is recognised in sections 42 to 44 of the contract act. this liability to contribute equally on the part of the co-promisors towards the performance of a joint and several promise appears to be ..... promisors may compel every other joint promisor to contribute equally with himself to the performance of the promise, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract.' 15. section 44 reads as follows :'where two or more persons have made a joint promise, a release of one of such promisors by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1956 (HC)

Bhuramal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-20-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj104; [1957]8STC463(Raj)

..... very wide definition, and includes persons like the applicants who in the course of their business as building contractors supply goods to those who give them contracts. this supply is certainly for remuneration, and is not gratis. the applicants, therefore, must be held to be dealers within the meaning of section ..... the argument is that the applicants do not carry on the business of selling or supplying goods, they merely carry on the business of building contract we are of opinion that this argument simplifies the matter too much, and cannot be accepted. it is true that the applicants are building ..... for taxation of goods which become embedded in the earth and become immovable property on the title passing to the person who gives the building contract.this is exactly what the rajasthan legislature has done by including in the definition of the word 'sale' the impugned words, namely 'a ..... receive, valuable consideration, he supplies goods the property in which (whether as goods or in some other form) passes, under the terms of the contract, to some other person.' in my opinion the commissioner is right in his contention that this provision applies to the present case.....' 14. thus though ..... and work of the contractor.though, therefore, the contractor is handing over a completed building or dam or bridge according to the terms of the contract, what he is really selling is the materials which are included in the building etc., in addition to the labour charges which he has incurred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1956 (HC)

Mst. Bajji Vs. Bhairon

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-12-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj261

..... jagni, mother of the defendant, to live in the house. it was alleged that gyarsi had died, but jagni and bajji continued to live in the house. jagni had since contracted re-marriage, and bajji went to her husband's house, and, therefore, the plaintiff asked them to give back the house to him, but bajji asserted her own claim in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1956 (HC)

Kanhyalal and ors. Vs. Ramkumar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-06-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Raj129

..... .15. now, so far as the liability of an endorser is concerned, section 35 of the negotiable instruments. act puts that liability in these terms:'in the absence of a contract to the contrary, whoever indorses and delivers a negotiable instrument before maturity, without, in such indorsement expressly excluding or making conditional his own liability, is bound thereby to every subsequent ..... to the same effect, and it is that the defendant no. 3 kanhyalal was desirous that the plaintiff should provide the other defendants with funds in connection with certain building contracts which they had undertaken and that although he was reluctant to do so at the beginning, he expressed his concurrence as the defendant appellant was prepared to stand as surety ..... kanhyalal in consonance with the principle underlying section 37 of the negotiable instruments act, according to which the drawer of a bill of exchange is, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, until acceptance and the acceptor thereafter are liable thereon as principal debtors, and the other parties thereto are liable thereon as sureties for the drawer or acceptor ..... son, were members of a joint hindu family and carried on a joint family business, that they were building contractors and required money in connection with the execution of certain contracts which they had undertaken, and, therefore, hazarilal as manager of the joint family business borrowed a sum of rs. 1000/- from the plaintiff under the surety ship of defendant no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 1956 (HC)

Mst. Bhoori Vs. Thakur Gulab Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1958Raj10

..... from doing or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.''as stated above, a fresh contract to pay an amount due would be a good consideration even if the previous dues were barred by limitation. if the previous debt is within time, a fresh ..... by time is a good consideration for a promise to pay under section 25 of the contract act.under section 63 a fresh contract is a good consideration for dispensing with the performance of a previous contract. 'consideration' has been defined in section 2, clause (d) of the contract act as follows:'when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other ..... contract would amount to a notation of the contract. in the present case, the terms have certainly been varied. again, by executing a new contract the creditor forbears to sue him on the old contract, and that forbearance again becomes a good consideration.8. there is no force in .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1956 (HC)

Gopal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-10-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj17

..... earned by a public servant for the period that he was actually in office. the present claim is not based on tort but is based on 'quantum meruit' or contract and the court is entitled to give relief to him.'8. it is obvious that in the opinion of their lordships neither the company nor the crown in india was ..... it is unnecessary to cite authority to establish that no action in tort can lie against the crown and therefore any right of action must either be based on contract or conferred by statute.'6. it is clear from the said observation that it is absolutely of no help to the appellant because his case is not based on ..... contract nor it has been pointed out that his right of action is conferred by statute. on the other hand, these observations definitely go against the appellant.7. learned counsel ..... india v. i. m. lall, (a) that 'no action in tort could lie against the crown and therefore any right of action for damages must either be based on contract or conferred by statute.' it was held that a claim to damages and arrears of pay must fail where there is neither a ..... contract nor any provision in any statute conferring such a right.lastly, learned counsel has referred to the case of state of bihar v. abdul majid, air 1954 sc 245 ( .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1956 (HC)

Sohanlal and anr. Vs. Devachand

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-06-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj11

..... for the purposes of this revision.suffice it to say that the plaintiff opposite partybrought a suit against the defendants petitioners,among other reliefs, for specific performance of analleged oral contract of sale with respect to a portion of a house which was alleged to be ancestrahproperty but part of which had fallen to the sharof certain co-sharers therein and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1956 (HC)

Gaya Parshad Vs. Basdeo and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-20-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Raj220

..... the government of jaipur under the jaipur emergency provisions (continuance) act. it cannot also be ignored that the jaipur rent control order is an encroachment on the general law of contract. under these circumstances it will be proper to construe clause 3(2) of the jaipur rent control order as limited in its operation to the period the jaipur rent control ..... .the decision depended upon the question whether the plaintiff's father could purchase the property as he was a police constable and whether the transaction of the purchase and the contract on which it was founded were not void under section 33 of the bombay district police act 4 of 1890. it was argued that as that section was repealed at ..... circumstances in which it was enacted, it is clear that it was in the nature of a temporary, legislation. further the jaipur rent control order superseded the general law of contract in the mat-ter of rent. such a law must be construed strictly.its scope must be limited to the purpose for which it was enacted. if the legislature in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1956 (HC)

Amarsingh and anr. Vs. Karnail Kaur and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-27-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Raj169

..... , therefore, the alleged after-born son jagrupsingh opposite party no. 2 was an impostor, not being the child of dayalsingh.there was a further allegation that mst. karnail kaur had contracted a second marriage with labhsingh, one of the sons of the plaintiff amarsingh. the plaintiffs' suit was instituted directly to obtain a declaration to the effect above-mentioned. they valued .....

Tag this Judgment!


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