Court : Delhi
Reported in : 51CompCas316(Delhi); ILR1986Delhi317
..... treat such a bank guarantee, as a guarantee under section 126 of the contract act, which speaks of three persons with reference to the contract, it is rather in the nature of contract of indemnity, under section 124 of the contract act ; which requires two persons. , a contract of guarantee the surety undertakes an obligation at the request express or implied ..... 'that these bank guarantees create positive obligations.. ......... ..................and are irrevocable.. . ..... .and that the obligation arising under the bank guarantees are independent of the obligations arising out of contract between the parties........ ... '. these observations have our full agreement.(14) mr. ray even made a half hearted attempt to distinguish the cases noted above by saying that in the ..... guarantee has nothing to do with the alleged disputes between the appellant and the respondent which must be decided independently on the basis of the terms of that contract, without involving the contract of bank guarantee.(11) in the present case the guarantee given by the bank of india is in the following terms :- thestate trdg. corpn. of ..... of the principal debtor. the obligation of the surety depends substantially on the principal debtor's default ; under a contract of indemenity .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(1989)ACC30; AIR1989Ker192
..... air 1979 cal 152) and differed from that view for the following reasons :'it is a well settled principle of law that insurance is an indemnity contract and unless the owner is made liable, there is no liability on the insurer to indemnify the owner. hence it would not be correct to ..... the tribunal in those claim petitions.11. the finding of the tribunal in m.a.c. no. 170/82 was that the driver of the contract carriage alone was negligent. there is considerable force in the submission urged by the appellants that the tribunal should have considered all the claim petitions ..... avoidable anomaly.4. counsel for the respondents in this appeal objected to the entertainability of a joint appeal by the owner and insurer of the contract carriage. we submitted that the owner, who has not been made liable to any amount as compensation, has not suffered any legal grievance and ..... and negligence of both the drivers. consequently, the tribunal awarded recovery of the entire amount of compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the contract carriage, whereas in the other four claims, the tribunal directed recovery of 50% of the amount of compensation alone from them, directing the other 50 ..... filed by the persons who were injured in an accident involving stage carriage no. klh 8204 which was proceeding from vazhikadavu to trichur, and a contract carriage bus no. ket 1714 which was proceeding from trichur to nadukani. the vehicles collided at a place called muppini in malappuram district on 1- .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom1; (1931)33BOMLR1291; 136Ind.Cas.497
..... claimed against respondent no. 1 specific performance on that basis and as against respondent no. 2 the balance of rs. 4,000 under what is really the contract of indemnity against mistakes in the accounts contained in the deed of dissolution. 4. the learned judge held that those two causes of action could not be joined. he ..... against w. & co. so that, in that case, as in this, the causes of action against the two parties were totally distinct and arose under different contracts, but the court of appeal held that the two causes of action could be joined in one action. it is quite true that the wording in the english rule ..... was no common question of fact or law. it seems to me obvious that there was a common question of fact, viz., what were the terms of the contract of sale,5. now, the plaintiffs' case is that the action is well constituted having regard to the terms of order i, rule 3. that rule provides ..... the firm to sell certain land belonging to the firm to respondent no. 1 and he entered the transaction in the books of the firm as being a contract to sell these lands to respondent no. 1 for rs. 9,000. the actual agreement for sale made between respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 1 ..... b. & co. to supply them with certain printed cards which were to conform to certain specimens supplied to them and in order to carry out that contract the plaintiff entered into another contract with w &. co. for the supply of the cards. w. & co. sent the cards direct to b. & co., and b. & co. refused to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : III(2003)BC20; 2003(1)KarLJ585
..... .'section 4(1)(b).--nothing in section 3 shall affect any right or remedy against any person other than a person referred to in that section, in respect of a contract or indemnity or guarantee entered into in relation to an agreement referred to in that section or in respect of any interest referred to in clause (a)'.a closer reading of ..... guarantee.'section 127.--anything done, or any promise made, for the benefit of the principal debtor, may be a sufficient consideration to the surety for giving the guarantee'.5. a contract of guarantee is a single transaction to which there are three parties--creditor, principal debtor and guarantor. therefore, the clause 'where any person is a party to any agreement relating ..... . the argument no doubt looked attractive but, on a closer analysis of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the act and sections 126 and 127 of the indian contract act, the same has to be discarded.3. the karnataka public monies (recovery of dues) act, is an act which was enacted mainly for the purpose of providing for speedy ..... party to the agreement relating to loan is liable to pay the amount stated in the loan transaction.4. section 126 of the indian contract act defines a contract of guarantee as follows.-'section 126a contract of guarantee is a contract to perform the promise or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his default. the person who gives the guarantee .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2616; AIR2008SC3205; 2008(4)AWC3206(SC); IV(2008)CPJ25(SC); 2009(1)MhLj38; (2008)6MLJ1046(SC); (2009)153PLR145; RLW2009(1)SC361; 2008(11)SCALE36; 2008AIRSCW5416; 2008(9)SCC100; 2008ACJ2616; 2008(11)SCALE36; ILR2008(4)Kar4664; 2008AIRSCW5416; 2008(9)SCC100; 2008ACJ2616; 2008(11)SCALE36; ILR2008(4)Kar4664
..... . the owner of the vehicle as also the driver thereof were, thus, principally liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased.14. a contract of insurance as is well known is a contract of indemnity. in a case of accident, the primary liability under law for payment of compensation is that of the driver. the owner of the vehicle also becomes ..... of the vehicle and therefore liable to pay the compensation?(ii) if so, what will be the just compensation?7. the high court, on perusal of the driving licence, the contract of insurance as also the testimonies of witnesses examined on behalf of the parties, held:8. we accordingly hold that the insurer having established that the driver was not `duly ..... costs of repairing of the maruti car, were also granted.(c) the driver of the truck did not possess a valid driving licence and, therefore, breach of policy of the contract of insurance was established as a result whereof the respondent no. 3 was not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle any such amount payable by him by way ..... vicariously liable therefor. in a case involving a third- party to the contract of insurance in terms of section 147 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 providing .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD400; [2004(102)FLR8]
..... 1988 act. insurance to those employees is not made compulsory obviously because they would be covered by the provisions of the act. it is well known that contract of insurance is but a contract of indemnity, and so the insurer is liable only to the extent of the liability it undertakes. when the second respondent chose to insure the risk of his driver ..... transported in the lorry, unless he takes out such insurance, appellant cannot be made liable for payment of the compensation payable to workers or coolies, because there is no such contract in this case. to elucidate, if in spite the mandatory provision a owner of a motor vehicle failed to take out insurance to cover third party risk, he can only ..... in case of his death to his legal representatives, merely because third party insurance, though mandatory under 1988 act, was not taken out by the owner. unless there is a contract between the owner of the motor vehicle and the insurer, the insurer cannot be made liable for payment of compensation due from the owner of the motor vehicle to a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1981P& H143
..... lal, 1964-66 pun lr 804.it has been held in oriental fire & general insurance co limited's case (supra).'it is well settled that a contract of insurance is nothing but a contract of indemnity. the policy issued is with reference to a specified vehicle owned by the policy holder and consequently the policy remains effective while the policy holder retains an .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... pointed out that this commission, in the case of m/s. harsolia motors v national insurance company ltd. [i (2005) cpj 26 (nc)] has held that a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. it has also been held that the insured could not trade or carry out any .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 57CompCas49(Kar); ILR1981KAR1602; 1982(1)KarLJ57
..... that the owner is not an aggrieved party. with respect we are unable to accede to that view. it is a well settled principle of law that insurance is an indemnity contract and unless the owner is made liable, there is no liability on the insurer to indemnify the owner. hence, it would not be correct to say that the owner cannot .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)2MLJ544
..... bringing or defending it, he did not contravene the orders of the promisor and acted as it would have been prudent for him to act in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorised him to bring or defend the suit;(3) all sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such ..... ) 1 k.b. 104, are referred to as authorities for this addition. thus, it would be clear that the present editors of chitty on 'contracts' recognise that in the case of contracts of guarantee as distinguished from contracts of indemnity the sine qua non of the liability of the surety is the existence of the liability of the principal debtor.30. the decree of ..... the liability of the guarantor or surety.8. turning now to the bond in suit exhibit a-1 we are clearly of opinion that it embodies a contract of guarantee and not one of indemnity. the relevant, clause by which the petitioner undertook his liability runs:it has been settled that if the 1st executant commits any default in paying the amount ..... not affect-the obligation undertaken by the indemnifier which is primary and in several' cases it was the possibility of this non-liability that was the occasion for this contract of. indemnity.7. every contract of guarantee, however, is not a contract of indemnity having this. effect. the nature of the obligation in this type of cases is set out in section 126 as a .....Tag this Judgment!