Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: kolkata Year: 1934 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.014 seconds)

Dec 20 1934 (PC)

Miss Moselle Solomon Vs. MartIn and Co.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-20-1934

Reported in : 163Ind.Cas.331

..... he should do so. again, if an action were brought and judgment recovered against the agent, then the agent would have a right of action for indemnity against his principal, while if the principal was liable also to be sued he would be vexed with a double action. further, if actions could ..... remedy, or that it is in applicable where the plaintiff has another right of action, arising out of some other cause, such as one founded upon contract, expressor implied, still less where for some reason such contractual right cannot be enforced. on this point i regret to find that seem to be ..... in rem judicatum applies not only as between the plaintiff and the defendant or any persons who were joint contractors with the defendant in the contract sued on but applies also although the person ultimately sued had no relation to the person against whom the prior judgment was recovered and was not ..... against this decision, the second defendant has appealed, mainly upon the ground that section 70 does not apply, because the goods were supplied under an express contract. the plaintiffs have filed cross-objections, and seek to make the second defendant liable for the whole of the claim, but they have not served the ..... indian statute uninfluenced by considerations derived from the english law upon which it may be founded.10. under the terms of section 233 of the contract act read with section 230 of the act both the agent and the undisclosed principal are liable. the causes of action against them are clearly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1934 (PC)

Ghisulal-ganeshi Lal Vs. Gumbhirmull-pandya and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-19-1934

Reported in : AIR1938Cal377

..... could not be assigned. it is true that sunderlal was not a partner in the real sense, because being a minor, he could not contract (section 11, contract act). but he had a right to benefit in the partnership under section 247. in sanyasi charan mandal v. krishnadhan banarji (1922) 9 air ..... if accounts were necessary to be taken, the infant sunderlal and the insolvents were necessary parties and they must render accounts before they could be entitled to indemnity; (6) that the suit was not competent, because it was a suit by some partners against other partners in the same firm and that the ..... confuses the issues which we have to decide to say that the firm of rekhabchand ghisulal has contracted with the firm of ghisulal ganeshilal, and that the first firm are independent commission agents acting for their principals, the firm ghisulal ganeshilal. what in ..... circumstances of this case, which must be decided according to the principles of english law as contained and codified to some extent in the indian contract act. according to those principles the firm as such has no existence in law, and the law regards only the individual partners. it only ..... obviously cannot be assigned [section 6 (e), transfer of property act]. it is a personal right. in commission agency, before an agent can claim an indemnity, he has a duty to account. if, as was pleaded, an account had been stated between the parties the position would have been different. such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 1934 (PC)

Durgapada Karmakar Vs. Nrisingha Chandra

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-14-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal541,159Ind.Cas.20

..... and though it was not registered the defendants came into possession on the basis of the said patta which was for consideration. there has been consequently part performance of the contract. section 53-a is retrospective in its operation and applies to pending actions. therefore, though the present suit was instituted on 10th june 1929, the plaintiff is debarred from ejecting ..... which has inserted a new section 53-a in the principal section whereby a defendant in an action of ejectment, may in certain circumstances effectively plead possession under an unregistered contract of sale in defence to the action. their lordships' view as enforced in the present case must therefore be understood to be referable to the state of the law before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1934 (PC)

Sudhendu Mohan Bagchi Vs. Khitish Chunder Dass Gupta

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-28-1934

Reported in : 163Ind.Cas.858

..... sum as to interest. the other promissory note for rs. 1,800, it was agreed was the equivalent of a fresh contract for the indebtedness over the hundi which was handed to the bank.3. it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that these two promissory notes amounts to two fresh ..... which is dated august 20, for another rs. 2,800 in the year 1930; and it is said that the first promissory note for rs. 2,800 was a fresh contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for rs. 1,800 on the original handnote together with the new cash loans of rs. 500, balance being made up of a calculated ..... of security given by the plaintiff to the bank was not in the form with which we are all so familiar, namely an indemnity bond, and it was rather on the lines that it was indemnity bond (and in an indemnity bond there are certain legal vrights accruing both to the principal creditor and the guarantor), that most of the arguments on this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1934 (PC)

Mannilal Anandji Vs. B.N. Ry. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-20-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal271a,155Ind.Cas.1052

..... insist on such a high standard would be to make an indian railway administration virtually an insurer and not a bailee, whose responsibility,, is defined in sections 151 and 152, contract act.5. with regard to the consignment booked at amgaon there is a further difficulty that bars the success of the plaintiff. his agent admitted that the consignment had not ..... india, the liability of a railway administration is not that of a common carrier. it is not an insurer. its liability is that of a bailee as defined in the contract act. if there is no negligence there is no liability. whatever the term misconduct may simply, it is quite apparent from a comparison of clause (1) with clause (2) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1934 (PC)

Kumar Raj Krishna Prosad Lal Singh Deo Vs. Barabani Coal Concern Ltd. ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-20-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal368

..... binding no question of the estoppel of the tenancy ceasing by reason of eviction by title paramount really arises. it is said that by the kabuliyat of 1918 the company contracted themselves out of their rights to cease to pay rent on eviction by title paramount. title or no title the company made themselves liable to pay at the reduced rate ..... to say that the man whose title he admits, and under whose title he took possession, has not a title. that is a well established doctrine. that is estoppel by contract. in the recent case of bilas v. desraj 1915 pc 98 at 207 (of 42 i.a.) their lordships of the judicial committee observed that:section 116, evidence act, is ..... which is based on a very different principle. section 116 deals with instances of estoppel by agreement based on permissive enjoyment. the estoppel of a tenant is founded upon a contract between him and his landlord. as has been pointed out in re stringer's estate v. jones ford, 6 ch d 9 the tenant took possession under the ..... contract to pay the rent as long as he held possession under the landlord, and to give it up at the e d of the term to the landlord, and having .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1934 (PC)

Dinonath Vs. Hansraj Gupta and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-05-1934

Reported in : AIR1936Cal44,160Ind.Cas.1056

..... the purposes for which it was contributed. there really is in this matter nothing whatever in the shape of a consideration which could form a contract between the parties.17. i respectfully agree with the views expressed by pearson, j. it is to be noted that this decision was given ..... in the subscribers' book for rs. 100, and the question was whether the plaintiff, as one of the persons who made himself liable under the contract to the contractor for the cost of the building, could sue, on behalf of himself and all those in the same interest with him, to ..... the whole of that rs. 40,000 the commissioners, including the plaintiff, were liable to the contractor as well as for the amount of the original contract, because the additions to the buildings were made by the authority of the commissioners and with their sanction. the defendant, on being applied to, put ..... work to see what subscriptions they could obtain. when the subscription list had reached a certain point the commissioners, including the plaintiff, entered into a contract with a contractor for the purpose of building the town hall, and plans of the building were submitted and passed; and as the subscription list ..... which were legally binding upon the testator. such for example, as periodical subscriptions payable to a club or other institution under the terms of a contract of membership, or where work has been undertaken or debt incurred at the promisor's instigation, or upon his promise to indemnify, express or implied .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 1934 (PC)

Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. H.E. Watson

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-04-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Cal730,152Ind.Cas.566

guha, j.1. these are two appeals by the government of bengal ; and they are directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned chief presidency magistrate, calcutta, on 16th december 1933, in regard to two separate charges, following upon complaints made against mr. h.e. watson, as director, statesman printing press, by the chief inspector of factories, bengal on 9th november 1933. the complaints made were: (i) under section 41 (a) read with section 28, and (ii) under section 43 (c) read with section 35, indian factories act.2. the case for the prosecution was that the inspector of factories inspected the factory, the statesman printing press, on 15th and 19th october 1933, and found that one printer, five proof readers, and seven compositors in the advertisement section were employed on different dates beyond the time limit of eleven hours per day, as prescribed by section 28, indian factories act. it was further alleged that the register of persons employed as prescribed by section 35 of the act, was not correctly maintained, regard being had to the facts that no entries were made in the register after 17th october, that specified hours of work of the persons employed were not entered in the register, and that different shifts in which the workers were employed were not shown.3. in the written statement filed in court by mr. watson, it was stated that during the dates between which the offences were alleged to have been committed, he was not in india, and he had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1934 (PC)

Jnanana Prasanna Bhaduri and ors. Vs. Hemendra Nath Roy Choudhury and ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-11-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal228

..... case of estoppel can arise as the plaintiff does not claim the estate through his father. mr. ghose contended that what the father was really doing was to make a contract for the benefit of his minor son, who is therefore bound by it. there can be no question that the son was benefited by it. this aspect of the matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1934 (PC)

Nagendra Nath Biswas Vs. Kripanath Bhattacharjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-06-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal94

..... by the principles enunciated in the case reported in bauga chandra dhur biswas v. jagat kishore 1916 pc 110. the necessity for the sale alleged in the payment of debts contracted is connexion with the sradh of kali nath and the probate proceedings. the learned subordinate judge's judgment on this part of the case is not very clear. but i .....

Tag this Judgment!


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