Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 1950 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.014 seconds)

Oct 05 1950 (HC)

Madholal Vs. Bridhichand

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-05-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Raj58

..... learned counsel for the applicant also. he has, however, argued that the learned civil judge did not at all apply his mind to the provisions of sections 192 and 193, contract act, and consequently acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction. from a careful reading of the judgment, i find that the learned civil judge has not at all considered ..... privity of contrast between the parties. the applicant was only a sub agent of laxami narain who was in the position of an agent of the plaintiff. under section 192, contract act, where a sub-agent is properly appointed, he is responsible for his acts to the agent, but not to the principal, except in case of fraud or wilful wrong ..... with interest at the rate of re 1% per mensem. the total amount claimed was rs. 193-7-6.2. the main defence was that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. the learned munsif karauli held this point in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. on appeal, the learned civil judge held that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1950 (HC)

Ghulam Mohammad and anr. Vs. Lakshmibux

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-14-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Raj88

..... parties for one month's notice & this is why ex. 3 was given in accordance with it. section 106, t. p. act, runs as follows:'in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immoveable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable ..... this section that a notice of 15 days terminating with the period of tenancy is necessary only in the absence of a contract to the contrary. when there was specific contract between the. parties & the notice was given according to that contract then it cannot be said to be invalid! for the reasons given by the applt's. advocate.5. at the close .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1950 (HC)

Laxminarayan and ors. Vs. Ashkar Khan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-28-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Raj50

..... principal in saving limitation.'2. i respectfully agree with the view taken in this judgment and hold that the word 'detor' connotes not only the person who contracted the debt but also his son in his capacity as his legal representative and, therefore, is liable to pay the debt, that is, the person against ..... the word 'debtor' was intended to connote not only this person who contracted the debt but his legal representative and in the case of a debt charged on land the parson who derived title from him; in short the person ..... to pay.' so far as the part payment of principal is concerned, the section specifically says, 'the debtor.' literally construed, it would mean the person who contracted the debt. we do not think that the legislature intended by the use of the word 'debtor' to have that restricted interpretation. it would seem to us that ..... , the son could by no means be said to be the debtor. if any payment is made by the son during the lifetime of the father, who alone has contracted the debt, since it is not a payment by the debtor, it cannot save limitation. sukumari gupta v. dhirendra nath, a. i. r. (28) 1941 cal ..... is in any way different from. the term debtor as it occurs in para. 2 of that section. in the case of a debt which was originally contracted by the father, on the death of the latter, the son becomes substantially the debtor and is therefore, 'the person liable to pay the debt,' these .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1950 (HC)

Premi Khem Raj Sharma Vs. Chief Secretary

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-31-1950

Reported in : AIR1951Raj113

sharma, j.1. this is an appln by praml khem raj, advocate the editor of 'congress ka khuni itihas', under section 99 b of the cr.p.c. the circumstances giving rise to it are as follows:2. premi khemraj (who will hereinafter be referred to as the author in this judgment) edited a booklet named 'congress ka khuni itihas in the year 1946 & it was published by hindu pustak bhandar, jaipur, in december, 1946. the then govt of jaipur by its order no. 8984/mb, dated 9-7-1948, published in the jaipur gazette dated 1-8-1948, proscribed the said booklet as well as another booklet, punjab men pakistani gundashahi' edited by gulab chand kala, which was also published by hindu pustak bhandar, jaipur. the order runs as follows:''congress ka khuni itihas''punjab men pakistani gundashahi'jaipur, 9-7-1948.whereas the govt of jaipur are satisfied that the circulation within the state of the marginally noted booklet is likely to be prejudicial to communal harmony & consequently to the maintenance of public peace & order in the state, & whereas the govt of jaipur for the aforesaid consideration deem it necessary to prohibit the purchase, transfer, sale, or otherwise possession of the said booklet in the state, it is hereby ordered that under section 99 a, cr. p. c. 1943, the purchase, transfer, sale or otherwise possession of the said booklet is banned with immediate effect in the jaipur state territory, excluding sambhar shamlat area.3. the present application relates only to congress ka khuni .....

Tag this Judgment!

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