Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
EXCEPTIONS
BUSINESS LAW
1527911
Donjo Joy
Introduction:
A Contract whereby one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by
the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person, is called a
contract of indemnity. . Indemnity, in simple words, is protection against future loss.
The person who promises to save the other is called the Indemnitor or Indemnifier and
the person who is compensated is the Indemnitee, Indemnified or the indemnityholder. It is a contingent contract by nature. It may be express or implied.
CASE
Injunction
against the
Bank of
Alexandria
against the
foreign buyer
restraining
them from
receiving any
money.
SOURCE
FACT
http://indiankano
on.org/docfragme
nt/588000/?
formInput=cases
%20on
%20indemnity
Osman Jamal
http://indiankano
And Sons Ltd. on.org/doc/11437
vs Gopal
65/
Purshottam on
19 July, 1928
JUDGEMENT
HDFC Ergo
General
Insurance
Company
Limited v
Bhagchand
Saini S/o
Suvalal
2014 Indlaw
NCDRC 462 2015
(1) CPJ(NC) 206
Gajanan
Moreshwar
Parelkar vs
Moreshwar
Madan Mantri
on 1 April,
1942
http://indiankano
on.org/doc/13610
99/
Nirmaljit
Singh Hoon vs
The State Of
West Bengal
And Anr on 6
September,
1972
http://indiankano
on.org/docfragme
nt/1379027/?
formInput=cases
%20on
%20indemnity
Complainant is not
entitled for any
compensation even on
'nonstandard' basis.
The orders passed by
the District Forum and
State Commission are,
therefore, set aside and
the consumer
complaint in question
stands dismissed.
Revision allowed.
The defendant be
ordered to procure from
the mortgagee a
release of the plaintiff
from all liability under
the deed of mortgage
and further charge and
also that the defendant
may be ordered to pay
into Court the sum
required to pay off the
whole amount due to
the mortgagee under
the mortgage and
further charge and that
the amount so brought
into Court be utilised
for the purpose of
paying off the
mortgage and further
charge.
Verma was not
examined during the
course of enquiry and
this fact resulted in
serious infirmity in the
evidence adduced by
the petitioner. As the
evidence of Varma was
not of a formal
character, his affidavit
could plainly be not
admitted in evidence.
V.M.
http://indiankano
Chockalingam on.org/doc/24218
Chettiar vs
1/
T.A.S.V.
Alagammai
Achi And Anr.
on 3 February,
1953
ADAMSON vs.
JARVIS [1827]
4 BING 66
https://kanwarn.w
ordpress.com/201
0/11/25/indemnit
y-under-indiancontract-act1872-part-2/
GAJAN
MORESHWAR
vs.
MORESHWAR
MADAN 1942
BOM 302
https://kanwarn.w
ordpress.com/201
0/11/25/indemnit
y-under-indiancontract-act1872-part-2/
Sassoons Vs
M.T. Ltd.,
http://indiankano
on.org/docfragme
nt/1022949/?
formInput=cases
%20on
%20indemnity
pay damages to
Adams.
Kyzuna
Investments
Ltd v Ocean
Marine Mutual
Insurance
Assoc (Europe
Indiakanoon
Thor
Navigation Inc
v Ingosstrakh
Insurance
[2005]
Indiakanoon
mortgage. In my opinion,
therefore, the transaction
contained in the deed of
mortgage is not a surety
ship transaction as argued
on behalf of the liquidator.
If the joint liability is
admitted, no question of
reduction of debt of M.T.
Ltd.
It was held that the words
"agreed value" or "valued
at" were not necessary to
create a valued policy
provided that the parties'
intentions were clear that
there was a specified
agreed value, proposed by
the assured and accepted
by the underwriter.
There were two fleet
policies of hull and
machinery insurance. One
policy, issued by the
Russian insurer,
Ingosstrakh, covered 40%
of the risk. The remaining
60% was insured by a
second policy issued by
Ingosstrakh's German
subsidiary. The policies
provided cover in
materially identical terms
and set out details of each
vessel insured, its owners,
the particular cover terms
applicable to that vessel
and a "sum insured" for
each vessel. The "THOR II"
was listed with a sum
insured of US$1.5 million.
In 2002, it was immobilised
by a broken shaft and main
engine damage and the
repairs were estimated to
cost US$2 million. The
ship-owners gave notice of
abandonment as the
repairs were expected to
cost more than the sum
insured. They argued the
Australian
case of "Vero
Insurance NZ
Ltd v Posa"
Indiakanoon
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Limited,
Maharashtra,
Duly
Represented
by Regional
Manager,
Bangalore v
Rathnamma
W/o Late G. K.
Govindaiah
and another
Jiangsu
Skyrun Wuxi v
Syrma
Technology
Private
Limited
grounds to interfere
with well-considered
judgment and award
passed by Tribunal
Mulcting liability on the
insurer on the basis of
the contract of
indemnity is justified
Corporate Companies Act,
Held, that Company's
1956, ss. 433 and 434
submission regarding
Debt Winding up
oral understanding is
Commercial solvency
afterthought and
Petitioner was seller of
belated attempt to
certain goods Petitioner
avoid making payment
sold and delivered some
of Petitioner's lawful
goods to respondent/
dues. There is not even
Company in respect of
whisper of such
which seven invoices were understanding in emails
issued by petitioner
of Company admitting
Company failed to pay for
liability and assuring
said goods Despite
prompt payment.
repeated assurances,
Company has, admitted
Company failed to remit
fact that Petitioner
outstanding dues Petitioner received amount from
issued statutory notice and its insurance Company
Company failed to reply for was brought to
same Company contended knowledge of Company
that there was oral
by Petitioner itself. If
understanding between
the Petitioner had any
petitioner and Company
intention of suppressing
that payments to petitioner said fact, petitioner
would only be made once
would not have
monies were received from mentioned same to
third party Petitioner also
Company. Assured is
contended that petitioner's entitled
insurance company had
to proceed against third
paid amount to petitioner
party and its only
in settlement of its claim
obligation is to make
against said invoices and
good amount paid by
petitioner had suppressed
insurer after having
this fact and hence
accounted for its own
Company was not liable to claim to ensure that
pay any sum Hence instant assured is not paid in
petition
excess of its claim.
Third party cannot be
seen to take defence
that claimant has
already been paid out
by insurer and,
consequently, avoid
making payment on
New India
Assurance
Company
Limited,
represented
by its
Managing,
Karimnagar
District and
that ground.
Submission by
Company that
petitioner's claim is not
'debt' but 'damages'
and that there is no
ascertained liability and
therefore claim of
Plaintiff can only be
proved in Civil Court is
untenable and
therefore rejected.
Court is satisfied that
amount as claimed by
petitioner is admittedly
ascertained and due
and payable by
Company to Petitioner.
Company cannot be
heard to say that since
it has large number of
workers and is making
profits Petition ought
not to be admitted.
Position that
commercial solvency of
Company cannot be
sole ground to reject
admission of Company
Petition, particularly
when debt is admitted
and there is no bona
fide dispute, is well
established. Petitioner
is directed to advertise
Petition in two local
newspapers. After
advertisements are
issued, balance if any,
shall be refunded to
Petitioner. Order
accordingly
Held, Tribunal cannot
give finding in absence
of driver of vehicle in
claim petition filed
u/s.166 of the Act,
when accident was
result of his rash and
negligent driving of
vehicle as it
another v
Margam
Padmavathi
W/o late
Kumaraswam
y
Sushant
Minerals
Private
Limited,
Odisha v
Indusind Bank
Limited,
Odisha
impleading driver as
necessary party, awarded
rs.15 lakhs with interest at
7.5% per annum with joint
liability Hence, instant
Appeal
2014 Indlaw
NCDRC 895 2015
(1) CPJ(NC) 404
Consumer Protection
Practice
& Procedure Consumer
Protection Act,1986, s.2(1)
(d)(ii) Violation of
guidelines
Deficiency in service
Maintainability of
complaint Complainant
was maintaining current
account in opposite party
bank accepted offer of
tantamount to violation
of principles of natural
justice. General
observations are
basically guidelines, for
all Tribunals to follow as
law of land, in
particular, u/art.141 of
the Constitution, to see
that impleadment of
driver of crime vehicle
alleged as respondent
to claim petition is
mandatory. It is for
reason that accident
claimed resulted due to
negligence of driver,
from claim petition
averments that is
required to be proved
by claimants u/s.166 of
the Act. It is only
therefrom owner of
vehicle is liable
vicariously to say driver
is principal offender to
fix liability vicariously
on the owner and
consequently for the
insurer to indemnify the
said owner insured.
When such is mandate
of law, HC has no
option but for to
remand matter while
directing Tribunal to
implead driver of
vehicle. Appeal
disposed of
Held, it is seen from
letter of opposite party
by which it has
sanctioned the facility
of credit limit to
complainant that
opposite party has
provided forward cover
limit for 'Plain Vanila
Forward
Contracts' upto an
amount of rs.15 crores
Dulal Chandra
Majumder S/o
Late Indra
Kumar
Majumder v
Bibek Roy S/o
Bimal Kanti
Roy
and another
Punjab and
Maharashtra
Cooperative
Bank Limited,
Mumbai v Puri
International
(Private)
Limited,
Mumbai
Baldev Alloys
Private
Limited
Through Its
Authorised
Signatory M.
K. Som S/o
Late D. K.
Som
v Chairman
Cum
Managing
Director, New
India
Assurance
Company
Limited and
another
2014 Indlaw
SCDRC 1419
Consumer Protection
Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, s. 17
Unpaid
claim Entitlement of
Complainant
filed consumer complaint
u/s. 17 of the Act against
the OPs Insurance
company seeking relief to
indemnify complainant by
paying the balance claim
amount of
Rs.31,02,770/and to pay
interest at 18% p.a. To pay
compensation amount of
Rs.10,00,000/towards
mental, physical and
financial loss To
Good Luck
Petroleum
Company
Private
Limited v
Future
Generali India
Insurance
Company
2014 Indlaw
SCDRC 1420
Consumer Protection
Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 , s. 17
Unpaid claims Entitlement
of Complainant has filed
this
consumer complaint u/s.
17 of the Act against the
Ops Insurance
Limited
Complaint partly
allowed.