Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-23-2003
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 : DRAT Delhi
Decided on : Jul-04-2003
Reported in : II(2004)BC183
..... of the principal debtor, and the liability of the surety will be co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, whereas, under a contract of indemnity, the indemnifier agrees to make good the loss suffered by another person in view of the conduct of the promisor himself or of a ..... the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a 'contract of indemnity'. "126. 'contract of guarantee', 'surety', 'principal debtor' and 'creditdr'.--a 'contract of guarantee' is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. ..... counsel for the appellants/ defendants refers to the provisions of sections 124 and 126 of the indian contract act. section 124 of the indian contract act reads as follows : "124. 'contract of indemnity' defined.--a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of ..... the learned counsel for the respondent-bank, on the other hand, contends that though this document is titled as an indemnity bond, it is in reality a deed of contract of guarantee. he also contends that it is not necessary that a deed of guarantee should be a tripartite agreement. the ..... . the appellants/defendants have also urged that the various aspects of law raised by them including the plea regarding limitation, and the concept of indemnity and guarantee have not been discussed by the drt in the final order. the appellants/ defendants have also urged that their right to file .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-24-2003
Reported in : 2005ACJ1653; AIR2004Raj131
..... of policy. this is one aspect of he matter. the more important aspect of the matter is that, even in entering into such a contract, if it is found that the indemnity is undertaken to indemnify for the loss, resulting from any act done, or allowed to be done, by the insured, which falls within any of the categories ..... insurance cover is required to be obtained complying with the requirements of the chapter, and the requirements of the chapter include the requirements enumerated in section 147. thus, the contract of insurance is, of indemnity, undertaking to indemnify the insured, in the event of his suffering any of the liabilities required to be indemnified by section 147, and the consideration of the ..... contract of indemnity is payment of premium by the insured, and in addition to comply with such of the requirements of the act as are incorporated in the policy, as permissible specified conditions ..... . thus by virtue of the provisions, and philosophy, of section 23 of the contract act if the liability of the insured arises as a result of violation of such provisions, which has been made punishable with imprisonment, in that event the insured cannot be allowed to claim indemnity, nor can the insurer be compelled to indemnify, on account of it having issued .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-04-2003
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT280(HC)
..... cannot be said to be in respect of the loss under the policy and the contract between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 ecgc is a contract of insurance which is essentially a contract of indemnity but not full indemnity. it is further contended by mr. mitra that in the event the insurer does ..... s bench division bench 330 in support of his contention that the insurer cannot retain the amount in excess of what it has paid by way of indemnity.30. mr. supriya bose the learned advocate for defendant no. 1 hong kong & shanghai banking corporation ltd. has contended, on the other hand, ..... assignment in the instant case and without being subrogated the insurer cannot claim to retain the amount in excess of what it has paid by way of indemnity. reliance has been placed by mr. mitra on the ratio of the decision in the case of yorkshire insurance co. ltd. v. nisbet shipping ..... of the original plaintiff ultimately vested in the present plaintiff.16. the admitted facts emerging from the materials on record are as follows. pursuant to the contract dated october 8, 1985 which is marked as exhibit 'b' the original plaintiff sold, supplied and exported 20 lacs of clip bolts to the egyptian ..... not indemnity completely but only partially, the insurer has no right of subrogation at all. he has further .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-23-2003
Reported in : 2004ACJ808
..... the other person and if a claim arises, then the sum insured is not received by the other person, but by the insured. the contract here is not one of indemnity in the strict sense, as the sum insured is a predetermined sum. the second kind of policy is a motor insurance policy, where ..... stipulates to pay compensation for the injury or death of the insured person himself cannot be said to be a contract of indemnity. in a case where the owner of the vehicle has the benefit of indemnity is himself not covered by the policy, it is needless to state that his defendant, unless he/she ..... natural and ordinary meaning of the term 'third party'. it is trite, the insurer is one party while the insured is the other party for a contract of insurance. therefore, it is unreasonable to construe that any person other than the said two parties would also be a third party. in reaching this ..... held that liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been made out for the purposes of indemnifying the insurer under the contract of insurance. sustenance could also be derived in support of the above position from the judgment of the apex court in minu b. mehta v. balkrishna ..... vehicle was involved except the vehicle owned by the deceased and, therefore, deceased could not have been considered as a 'third party'. in terms of contract of insurance produced as exh. r-1, the appellant company has no obligation to indemnify the insured party in respect of injuries caused to him or his .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-23-2003
Reported in : I(2005)ACC585
..... in the other person and if a claim arises, the sum insured is not received by the other person, but by the insured. the contract here is not one of indemnity in the strict sense, as the sum insured is a predetermined sum. the second kind of policy is a motor insurance policy, where ..... to pay compensation for the injury or death of the insured person himself cannot be said to be a contract of indemnity. in a case where the owner of the vehicle has the benefit of indemnity is himself not covered by the policy, it is needless to state that his dependant, unless he/she ..... natural and ordinary meaning of the term 'third party'. it is trite, the insurer is one party while the insured is the other party for a contract of insurance. therefore, it is unreasonable to construe that any person other than the said two parties would also be a third party. in reaching this ..... held that liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been made out for the purposes of indemnifying the insurer under the contract of insurance. sustenance could also be derived in support of the above position from the judgment of the supreme court in minu b. mehta v. balkrishna ..... was involved except the vehicle owned by the deceased and, therefore, the deceased could not have been considered as a 'third party'. in terms of contract of insurance produced as ex. r1, the appellant-company has no obligation to indemnify the insured party in respect of injuries caused to him or his dependents .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-31-2003
Reported in : II(2004)ACC762; 2005ACJ1294
..... contract of indemnity, cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the damages to consignor merely because the consignor had already received the money from the insurance company, under a contract of insurance. the supreme court also in the case of union of india v. sri sarada ..... own insurance company, he was also entitled to receive damages from the railways. in that case, it was held that the compensation of the insurance company was that of an indemnity. the railway company which caused damage to the consignee, continues to be primarily liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff. it, not being a party to the ..... . therefore, from the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the decisions cited (supra), it is clear that the contract of the owner of the vehicle with its insurance company is a separate contract and if any claim is received under the said contract, the same cannot be treated as bar to claim compensation from the offending vehicle on the ground that some ..... judge of delhi high court was of the view that the amount paid by the insurance company is paid under a separate contract between the owner and the insurer of the jeep. tortfeasor cannot take advantage of the owner's contract with third party and the rule of subrogation is also not applicable in such cases and the right of the owner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-2003
Reported in : III(2003)BC27; 116CompCas291(Delhi); (2003)3CompLJ494(Del); 105(2003)DLT37; 2003(68)DRJ745; 44SCL718(Delhi)
..... . this determination would be dependant upon the sundry terms contained in the bank guarantee. it is the section 124 of the contract act which is of relevance to the present case as it defines a contract of indemnity to be a contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or ..... of credit are satisfied. the bank, however, was not allowed to determine whether the seller had actually shipped the goods or whether the goods conformed to the requirements of the contract. any dispute between the buyer and the seller must be settled between themselves. the courts, however, carved out an exception to this rule of absolute independence. the courts held that ..... of the guarantee.' the other recent decision is in hindustan steelworks construction ltd. v. tarapore & co., : air1996sc2268 . 16. clearly, thereforee, the existence of any dispute between the parties to the contract is not a ground for issuing an injunction to restrain the enforcement of bank guarantees. there must be a fraud in connection with the bank guarantee. 17. before us, however ..... the iranian government had forcibly taken 52 american citizens as hostages. the us government had blocked all iranian assets under the jurisdiction of united states and had cancelled the export contract. the court upheld the contention of the exporter that any claim for damages against the purchaser if decreed by the amercian courts would not be executable in iran under these .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-17-2003
Reported in : AIR2003Ker201; 2003(1)KLT626
..... singh and ors. (air 1967 sc 1315) would apply. in that case supreme court was dealing with section 124 of the indian contract act which refers to contract of indemnity. the apex court held that time in that case runs under article 83 of the limitation act. we fail to see how that ..... limitationtime from which periodbegins to run55. for compensation for the breach of anycontract, express or implied not herein specially provided for three years when the contract is broken or (where there aresuccessive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit isinstituted occurs or (where the breach is continuing) ..... due from the firm as compensation for the breach. obviously the corporation coulddecide whether it had in fact suffered damages by the breach of contract committed by the firmonly on re-tendering the work and finding that the re-tender has cost the corporation more. infact if it were ..... suit for compensation for the breach of anycontract express or implied and not otherwise specially provided for. the starting point oflimitation is when the contract is broken or the breach in respect of which the suit is instituted,occurs and the period provided is three years. to the extent ..... suit was hit by the law of limitation. suit was instituted for realisation of money. plaintiff is a public limited company engaged in construction contracts. first defendant is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. first defendant undertook some work for which agreement was entered .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Mar-31-2003
Reported in : III(2004)ACC605,2003(2)JKJ163
..... to avoid his liability. where the insured is found to have incurred the liability because of the simple reason that a policy of insurance being in the nature of a contract of indemnity, the insurer taken upon himself to discharge the liability of the insured arising out of a motor vehicle accident, subject of course to the terms and conditions of the ..... a statutory right can be exercised only in the manner permitted by the statute. when law limits the grounds of challenge the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by any contract also. section 149(2) of the act limits the insurers appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being creation of the statute it is not open to the insurer ..... his liability except on the grounds mentioned above, when a party takes out a policy of insurance, does so after paying the premium for the sum assured and unless the contract between him and the insurer can be avoided, the insurance company which has been benefited by the premium cannot backout of its commitment to indemnify the insured. this is manifest ..... , being one of the following conditions, namely:- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle. (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or(b) for organised racing and speed testing, or(c) for a purpose not allowed .....Tag this Judgment!