ASk6t,

bh 124, 125, 126, 128,129,133,134,140,141 READ

Pollock and Mulla

United Breweries v. State of Andhra Pradesh- UB makes

beer bottles, gives them to retailers, who sells it to
customers. UB would supply retailers with beer and
bottle, retailers would take 40 rupees+certain amount(40
paise, token amount) for the bottle. After the customer
buys the bottle, he has to give back the bottle to the
retailer for the prive he paid. This was highly advertised.
Judge said that they wanted the bottles back, and said
that when they dont return the bottles the price that they
lose is the price for breaching bailment.

Maharashta2 v. Brittania Biscuits- BB sells biscuits in

tins, they charge money for tins (PRICE FOR TINS
MUCH HIGHER THAN MANUFACTURING COST) ,
consumer can sell back the tin for the price they bought
it. No advertising for the tin-buy back offer, they made a
lot of profits. Sales tax commissioner wanted to impsoes
ales tax on both. Three months were the time frame
imposed for returning the tins, but they were lax and
accepted it way after three months. Judge said no
publicity, and did not adhere to the time limit says that
theres no intention to get the bailed goods back. It was a
buy back scheme. Discussed entrustment.

Ganjanan Moreshwar- FACTS- Plaintiff took a lease

from the municipal Corporation for 999 years, agreed to
tranfer the lease to defendant, defendant mortgages
house twice for building shit on property, indemnifies
plaintiff for all costs of the mortgage, plaintiff transfers
lease. When the mortgage nears the end of its time limit,
the creditors come knocking on Bs door. The plaintiff did
not pay off the mortgage.(Theres no actual loss).
Defendant argues that losses are due to plaintiffs own
conduct. Secondly, no actual loss. Judgment says that
the concept of indemnity isnt entirely encapusulated in
section 124 and 125, and that its a broader concept.
actual loss is not necessary for claiming indemnity.

Bikram cotton mills- The guarantee- The director of

Bikram cotton mills give a guarantee to give all money
owed to PNB that is owed at the foot of the bill. The
company became insolvent, and Bikram had several
creditors. A scheme was devides where all creditors
would get proprotional assets depending on how much
theyre owed. This porcess was still under way. PNB
sued BKM. Arguments that the suit is premature and
that were liable for the foot of the bill. Judgment- Suit
aint premature. BKM director only agreed to pay back at
the foot of the bill. PNB willl have to wait until the
process is complete so that the foot of the bill amount
can be determined. Guarantee was to pay thr final
amount, not what was due.

Lala shanti swarup- There is an owner of land and a

buyer. There are old mortgages which have not been
paid off yet. The sale agreement also includes the
clause that the buyers will have to pay the morgages.
The buyers default in paying off mortgages. Buyers
argument is based on limitations ( the claim was to be
raised for a certain time span). An agreement in which
the buyer agrees to relieve the seller from
encumberances on the property is an implied inde`mnity.
Switchgear- Company hires servicemen to work on theit
building, theres an agreement saying if the servicemen
fuck up theyll have to idnemnify the company that hired
them- they dont sepcify details of idnemnity. The
building owner’s negligence causes a loss. Company
owns the building, tries to get servicemen (who had
nothing to do with this) to inemnify them. Lower courts
company wins. Judgment says that indemnity is only
when servicemen ils liable for their own negligence.

Bolivinter Oil v Chase Manhattan Bank- the grounds to

stop unconditional bank guarantee (irretreivable injustice
/ egregious fraud) is discussed

Industrial Finance v. Cannanone Spinning mills- Facts

are fucked up. Lays down the rules of
subrogation(article 140 and 141)- surety steps intot he
shoes of the creditor is subrogation. Subro. is the
collateral given by the PD to all the securities given to
the creditor. Securities given ebfore the suretyship is
made is only considered. If you limit your liability as a
guarantor, and youve paid it off, you can get your
collateral back.

Lloyd v. Harper- Continuing guarantee- when you give a

guarantee for a series of transactions.section 131- if the
guarantor dies his continuing guarantee dies with him.
Fidelity guarantee. Llyod is a company that takes in
underwriters. Its in their bylaws that Lloyd can only kick
out an emplyee for insolvency. Harper wants his son to
be emplyed and guarantees his sons honesty and
perfomance. Llyod hires the son, Harper dies. Harper’s
son sucks at his job, and causes loss for Lloyd’s clients.
Lloyd tries to kick him out by the guarantee.Harper’s
estate says that the guarantee expired after his death.
Judgement says that the guarantee could have been
revoked at any time verbally, so it makes no sense to
say that the guarantee is no more, because a guarantee
that guarantees perfomance would be of no use to
anyone if it could be voided like this.
Second aspect- Lloyd is suing for their clients as
trustees. Argument is that there’s no privity, and that the
clients should sue themselves. Judgment says that if the
clients agree, Lloyd could sue, its chill

`
If the PD becomes insolvent, is the guarantor liable?
YES remedy is discharged against the PD, but the right
of the guarantor still remains- NOTHING CHANGES ffs
(Industrial finance) If the debt against the PD is time
barred, si the guarantor liable? Yes, as along as the debt
is not time barred agaisnt the guarantor- HYU (Aziz
ahmad case)
If an act of parliament scales down the debt of the PD,
the guarantor can claim the benefit of the waiver.
(section 128)- POP (co extensive libailtiy)

Syndicate Bank v c bellery - On demand guarantee ka

concept. Ina normal guarantee, the guarantor would
normally pony up when the PD defaults. In on demand,
you have to specifically ask. You have to ask before the
limitation against the PD runs out- in this, HYU does not
apply.
Subramanian Chettiyar- POP was upheld. Hold that the
Batcha Rowther case was wrongly decided.

Anirudhan v. tomco bank- Anirudhan is the guarantor,

PD wsnts a loan of 20K, PD goed to the bank, bank was
a guarantee. Anirudhan makes a guarnatee of 25K,
bank wanted a 20K guarantee. PD crossed out the 5
and put a 0 lol. The bank accepted it. The surety tried to
claim material alteration when the time to pay came.
Kappor J states that the guarantor is liable bevause
when theDP took the guarantor ka guarantee, he was an
acting as an agent of Anirudhan. whatever the agent
does is binding on the master.
Sarkar dissented, said that material alterayion is
material alteration.
Hidyatullah uphead Kapoor’s agency argument, upheld
Holms v. brunskill rule.

Holmesv. brunskill rule- Huge amount of land, sheep on

the lan d belonging to Holmes. He gives it to Brun skill,
there is an agreement that if theres any damage Holmes
will pay. Next year comes around, and Holmes wants to
tear up the agreement before the agreement comes to
an end, and he tells brunskill that he wants a bog field.
Brunskill says okay, ill lease the whole field except the
bog field. At the end of the agreement, sheep arent in
perfect condition so Holmes wants to sue. Guarantor
argues that material alteration without his consent
(discharge of guarantor because of alteraytion section
133 of indian conract act). Jury held for Holmes,
becaosue its a small change(Brett J). Cotton LJ ruling-
The true ruke regarding material alteration - if the
alteration is beneficial to the guarantor, the guarantor
may not claim discharge. If else, obtain consent of
guarantor. If no consent, giarantor can claim dissent.

T Raju Shetty v. Bank of Baroda-. a guaranot can give

up all his rights under the contract act under section
139. Aeguments that he cannot give up rights -:> public
policy. PD has not paid, there were two guarantors,
creditor sues all three people in the same suit. Pd dies in
the middle of the suit, creditor due to his own negligence
fails to replace the PD with his estate, after some time
this becomes time barred. Because of this negligence,
PD is discharged. because this was the same suit,
guarantors are also discharged. Becomes the Pd is no
more, who would pay the creditor? When the PD died,
the suit died and the right got extinguished.

mahanth v U Ba Yi - Facts are irreleavant- Crediutor

gives loan to the Pd, creditor says to PDthat he wont be
sued, hell sue guarantor, Guarantor claims co extensive
libaility and says that if Pd cant sued, I cant be sued.
Judgmwnt- Creditor isnt discharging the PD, hes saying
that hell RESERVE HIS RIGHTS against the guarantor.
Guarantor can sue the PD after he gives money to the
creditor- Section 137.

Craythorne v. Swineburne- GUARANTOR FOR A

GUARANTOR. Distinction between Indian and English
law- In english law, the guarantor has the right to every
security the creditor has against the PD, regardless of
whether the guarantor is aware of their existence or not.
In Indian law, under section 141, the surety is entitled to
the benefit of every security the creditor has when the
contract of suretyship begins.
Sir Samuel Romeley is the laywer for the plaintiff- he
said that the guarantor has the right to……. existence or
not.
Swineburne agrees to become the guarantor as long as
the PD and the initial guarantor( think inception ) dont
pay up.

Mount Stephen v. Lakeman -> Mount stephen is a

worker at a sewage plant, Lakeman is a director,
Stephen says that hell only work if the comapny orders,
Lakeman says that do the work ill see that you are paid.
Question ios whther its an indemnity or a guarantee.
(lower court) Queens bench said that lakeman gave a
guarantee (company is PD), oral guarantee cannot be
imposed. Kings bench says that this is indemnity,as
Lakeman in this scenario is giving a promise in his
personal capacity. And for a contract of guarantee to
arise there has to be a third party. The company is
absent in this case. as company wasnt privy to the
contarct, Lakeman did it in his personal behalf, so hes
liable.

Vinitec electornic- Initial guarantee was a conditional

guarantee, then amended and became an unconditional
one with everyones consent.

COGGS v. BERNARD- Facts ireelevant. GO THROUGH

SHANTANUs Hmorvi
IGHLIGHTS
MOSCHI LEP AIR- Rolloswin is the company which owes Lep
air money & Moschi is the guarantor (director of Rolloswin). Can be
read with Hobbs v Bass
·         Formidable Argument – R breached the contract & Lepar
accepted the repudiation, which brought an end to the contract
before the installments ever became due, hence the contract
doesn’t exist. Obligations of R don’t exist hence Guarantor is
absolved.
·         Two types of guarantees (Lord Reid) – One where the
guarantor merely guarantees the amount paid.That is if PD
doesn’t pay G will pay – no contract breach if pd breaches.
Where the second type the G guarantees that the PD will
pay ie – if the PD does not pay, there is a contract breach in
itself where both PD & G will be guilty. G then pays
·         With regard to the formidable argument, acceptance of the
repudation of an agreement does not alter its terms in any way
– it merely transmutes the primary obligation of the promisor
to perform the terms contractually into a secondary
obligation. Basically the contract still exists bc
·         The losses are then interpreted as damages
 
Ø  If the G guarantees performance, with limited
liabilty he can only attain collateral on full payment of
debt.

Hobbs v. bass-> m

BAILMENT

Wilkinson v. Shields- FACTS- The bailor gives a baille a

horse for the bailee’s personal use, horse is reckless
and kicks her off and runs out and dies. The court
decided that the bailee took reasonable care, bailor did
not take reasonable cause, bailor did not approproiately
communicate to the bailee everything that’s required.
Bailor’s fault

Hyman v. Nye- Facts- The bailor’s seravnt is driving the

horse carriage and the bailee is the passenger, due to
some defects the carriage broke down and the
passenger was ejected from the carriage. Is bailor
copletely fulfilled his duties as a bailor? Bailor says that
hes not an insurer. Judgement says that its true ki the
bailor doesnt have unlimited responsibilit, but he does
have a reasonable duty of care, as given in section 151
of ICA. He is an insureer against all defects that care
and skill can guide out. INDIAN CONTEXT LOVELYS
NOTE- In cases of bailment for hire, extraordinary
diligence on the part of the bailor is required under
section 150 (overt and latent defects).

UOI v. West Punjab FActory- The railway case.

JC Thrika v. PNb- JC thrika dad gave a box of jewellery

to PNB(Lahore branch), Partition happened, box
became lighter when they received the box back. It was
proven that PNB had exclusive possession of the box
throughout the duration and wasnt able to prove looting.
The employees probably looted this. PNB didnt get
absolvement

Shivnath - factory case- a mob loot the railway stations,

the defence is that we complied with all reasonablwe
duties of secrtion 151,

Patel- Common carriers libaility, under section 152 , as a

bailee youre a common carrier, youre an insurer, you
have strict liability, you have to rebut the presumtpion
Sumant singh- You can remove your liability under
secon 151
Chandulal - You cant remove your liability. Dilution of
liaiblity isnt possible.

Bank guarantees and other instruments iof the bank

arent analogous- Marubani Hong Kong

western Coalfields - Bank guarantee continegnt on

something. Not conditional

Hamilton v. Watson- You dont need to disclose every

dealings between the creditor and the PD to the surety,
if the surety needs to know he should make it the
subject of the contract

Barclays v. O brien- The surety is husband and wife, the

bank has to edplain everything to the wife because of
the domestic relationship

Interpleader suit- If im the bailee, and im supposed to

give the goods to the bailor, and theres a third party
whose claims to be the owner of goods and saying that
the bailor had no rights to bail the goods, this suit is filed
by the bailee and impleads(calls to court) both the bailor
and the third party (Dugdail v. Lowering, 2 wagons. Two
different parties claim the wagon. We will give the
wagons but pls indemnify us when giving it to one party.
No reply, implied indemnity. The sued. indemnity case
with facts similar to this suit)

Posession, reversionary interest and duty of care-

Dempster’s three elements of bailment

Sub bailment- when the bailor confers exclusive

possession uon the bailee, bailor retains reversioanry
interets. If the baillee confers his reversionary interest
upon another bailee, the reversionary interest is
available with the bailee and the original bailor.

Bailment is a larger conceot than whats given in the

Indian Contract Act.

Dhyan Singh v. Union of India- Read section 7 and 8 of

the Special relief Act

Maurice v. C W Marting- Bailor is a perosn who had a

minx stole coat, she gave it to the bailee to clean it,
bailee with the consent of the bailor sub bailed it to the
cleaning companies (sub bailee)with consent.
Cleanming company had certain exemption clauses,
(that the sub bailees wouldm not be iable to the owners)
the subbailee loses the goods. Bailor sues the sub
bailee. Denning said the same thing as midland silicone.
The companys exemption clause said that theyre not
liable to the owners, and the original bailee was not an
owner.
The owner is bound by the conditions if he has
expressly or impliedly consented to the bailee making a
sub baikment containing thise coinditions, but not
otherwise.Bailor must be awra eofg these terms

\Midland Silicone- Bailor(Consignor)(Pawnor)(Pledger)

bailed goods ( a drum worth more than 500 pounds,
which was supposed to be declared according to
protocol) to the carrier there was an exemption clause
for the carrier where the acrrier wasnt iable for more
than 500 pounds in case of loss. bailee gave it to the
stevedores, and the bailee had an exemption clause
where theywouldnt be liable for more than 500
poiunds.Stevedores said that they wan to be entitled top
the same protection and the bailee agrees. Bailor did not
declare the drum as being worth more than 500 pounds.
Stevedores dopped the drum and damaged it.
Consginors sued the stevedores for negligence. They
argue that stevedores as stranbers cannot be privy to
the contract even though it is for their benefit.
Stevedores argument -iF A and B contracts, and B
contracts for the benefit for C(stevedores), then C
should be able to claim the benefot of the contract(500
limiting liability of contract between bailor and bailee).
REJECTED by the hous eof lords based on privity
(Pneumatic Tyres v. Selfridge)
DENNING DISSENT- Negligence is being viewed as a
spearate tort by the court..Stevedores had explicitly said
that they wanted the benefit of that contract.
Alternatively, Denning says that the stevedores are sub
bailees, consiognors aurthorised the bailees for sub
bailment and hence the consignor shoukd be bound by
the terms of the contract. If the bailor consents to the
bailee sub bailing the goods, he is bound by the terms
on which the goods ahve been sub bailed, if he
expressly or impliedly authorised.

Section 175 has to be read this with 151

Lalan Prasad - 173-175 sections IMP case Deals with

the rights of the pawnee with regard to preseravtion of
goods. If the goods are perishable and isnt the fault of
the bailee, if he spends some money for the same he is
bound to be reimbursed.

Lien- Care and skill required. Cannot sell off the goods,
only retain it. two types of lien- section 170- Particular
lien- covers all situations where you ecercise woirk and
skill over the goods. Its implied in everything except five
specific situtaion.
Kanhaiya Lal case- There is one bailor who has bailed
the goods to a lien holder, and has also pledged the
goods. Both of them claim the goods, pledge holder
wante actual possession. Lien holder wanted to retain
his right to lein. It was held that lien holder should have
precedence as he cannot sell off the goods.
Section 171- General lien- 5 occupations-
factors(mercantile agents), warfingers(Bombay Port trust
v. Sriyanesh), bankers, policy brokers, attorneys of the
court
Pledge- If you dont give me money, ill sell your shit
RD Laxman- Advocates dont have the right to general
lien
Karnataka Pawnbrokers v. state kartanataka- The
pawnor has to give reasonable notice to the pawnee, the
right to sell is vested in the pawnee not the pawnor

Pledge is an exception to the nemo dat quad rule-

Pledgee can sell the goods even though he doesnt have
any better right tk ownership than the owner. Nemo dat
quad rule- you cant confer a title higher than what you
have. Bailment strictly follows this. lalan prasad case.
Shares and stocks can be pledged-
Standard Chartered BAnks v. the Custodian- If there is a
benefit to the goods bailed, does thr benefit go to the
bailor or go with the bailee?B ailee has to return it. (if a
horse gives birth to a calf). In this case, shares were
pledged, and bonus shares have arisen. The bailor cab
get the bonus shares once he pays off the bailee’s debt.

Kannambra cNeyar v. P N Krishanan- Shares are goods

and are pledgeable and para 9 onwards

Secured creditor higher precdence over unsecured

creditor

Standard Chartered Bank v Custodian – Shares and stocks are goods,

they can be pledged. Concept of Pledge. Para 40 They pledged shares,
and didnt pay back the loan. They said that you can keep the shares,
but pls give back the bonus shares ( shares appreciated in value). The
court said nein
Kannambra Nair vP.N Krishna – Shares are goods & are therefore
pledgable para 9
Bank of Bihar v State of Bihar – Pledgor A had received money from
Bank B & pledged sugar to the bank. The governemt seized the sugar.
The grounds on the said seizure weren’t held & govt was to return
sugar. Govt however sold the sugar and paid of the debts the pledger
had, which included paying off a cane commissioner and other
credtiors.
Court ruled that the govt should have paid bank as they were secured
creditors (had security) and they had precedence of unsecured
creditors.
Sec 178-179 ,Say Pledgor A receives his goods from someone
through voidable terms eg – through coercion . Pledgor A then
pledges his goods to pledgee B, who acts in good faith and has no
idea of the coercion. Pledgee B has his rights intact.
Hardman v Booth – pledge was invalid as goods were obtained prior
under void ab initio contract.

If it is first given to B, then B may sell it. Leaving C with no recourse.

Para 6
Section 179 based on the principle of assignment –
British Machinery – Bailor gave his sewing machine through hire-
purchase agreement ( EMI – ownership upon completion of
installments payments). Bailee gave the machine to a third party as a
pledge. Bailee defaulted & bailor is suing for return of machine.
Judge said third party need not return the machine as he bought it in
good faith & the bailor can sue for unpaid dues as bailee had paid
substantial installements and was to eventually own it ( see hire-
purchase agreements)
Lakhamchand case- Deals with section 179
Official Asignee of Madras v. Mercantile Bank of India- Text of the
unamended section 178. The entire case is not important. READ
THIS CASE
a person who is possession of any goods or of any bill of leading,
dock warrent , warehouse keepers certificate, warifingers certificate or
warrant or order for delivery or any other document of title to goods,
may make a valid pledge of such goods or documents “provided that
the pawnee acts in good faith and under circumstances that are not
such to raise a reaosnable presumption that the pawnor is acting
improperly”, provided also that sucj goods or documrnts ahev not
been obtained from their lawful owner or any person in lawful
custody of them by means of offence or fraud.

English law- Pledging documents isnt tantamount to pledging the

goods known as ipsa corpora (unless you have attornment- consent
given by the baillee to hold goods for a third party to whom exclusive
possession has been conferred.). Exception- bill of leading
Indian law- Pledging documents is the same as goods. Reaffirmed by
official asignee of Madras case, Section 178 is not the law.
Morvi Mercantile Bank case v. UOI- There is a pledge of document
of title. Amended section 178 states that mercantile agent can pledge
dfocuments of title. Everyone can have a mercabntile
agent.Establishes that everyone has the right to pledge document of
title. How can the principle not do what his agent can do?
AGENCY is ana ergument of convenience
section 182-238. Eveyrhting has been laid down. Child play
To prove agency you only need to prove authority. No possession no
bailment, no authority no agency. Servants can be agents but agents
cant be servants by default

dunlop v. Selfridge- Undisclosed principle, third party is unaware of

principle. Authority has to be known as well.

Section 237- agency by estoppel

Morris v. Cleaseby - Leading case on del creder agent
A minor can be an agent under section 184 but if the minor fucks up
you cant sue him.
Bhagwandas puroji- Pucca adayat
The test of agency is this: The essence of agency is that the principal
authorise the agent to reprewsent or act for him.
Kuchwar Line vs. some Railway- The cauliere was working as an
agent for the company (due to analysis of the factula matrix).
Digvijay Cement- They are agents.
Balthazar and sons case- There were three parties. Dual side of
agency- Principal. One was a middleman for getting cloth from A to
C. A is the buyer. He makes an offer to B to buy cloth. B contracts
with C. C agrees. C defaults. B has repudiatory breach against A. A
sues B. B tries to argue that hes an agent for C. A says that no hes an
principal. Court says theyre all principals.\

Food corp of india case - 189 and 214 sections- Three parties, cargo
owner, ship owner salvador(salvager). Ship sinks, goods go down.
Salvagers salvage some of the goods, store it in warehouses, costs
them a lot of money. Whos the bailor? Agent of necessity there or not,
as the salvadors had to store it in warehouses so that the goods would
not spoil? Agent of necessity should be confined to pre existing
relationships. Thus this is not an agent of necessity. This judgemt
affirms section 189. Salvadors win the case agaisnt the cargo owners
on the principke of bailment.If the lien holder is exercisingh his lien
over goods, and the goods suffer damage, the lien owner holdsd a
duty of carer to the bailor to take care of the goods but bailor is not
liable for the expenses incurred by the lien holder in maintianing the
goods. Lien is in the lien holders benefit, hence alle xpenses
imncurred woukd be compensated. Go through highlights
Section 192- Agent’s agent is a sub agent.
Set Lun karan executed a power of attorney in the defendant, and the
defenadnt has the authority to dela with the goods.
De bussche vs. alt- Principal wanted to sell a ship. Agwnt didnt get a
buyer. Sub agent bought it himwlf and sold it for far higher. Sub agent
argues that he was no longer the sub agent once he bought the ship.
An agent should not profit for something he does on part of the
principal. VERY IMPORTANT CASE.
Controversial part of the case- Lower court judgement and high court
judgemtn is the same conclusion through different ways. Shantanu
appoints me as an agent . I cant do it and i appoint varun with
shantanus authorisation. This is A SUBSTITUTE agent. If a sub agent
fucks up, the sub agent is responsible to the agent. A substitute agent
is directly liable to the principal. 194 is on substituted agent.
ratification-> I did some act as an agent of yours. Thenw e officially
ratified the agency relationship. There is retrospective application of
agency, he would have done that act as if he had been an agent.
Alternatively, he could disown the agent.
Bolton v. Lamberg(section 196-200)- If revocation of acceptance
precedes ratification, which would prevail? Because raitification has a
retrospective effect. ratification is binding from the date. Estopeel
works on representation. Section 237 talks about estoppel (agency by
estoppel). . For ratification there has to be representation. If im an
agent and i do something, i have to make sure that i have to represent
to the guy that im his agent, otherwise my principal cannot ratify my
actions. Distinction to be drawn between section 188 (scope of
agencys authority) and section 237 *agency by estoppel- the dividing
line is representation .
Section 200- Bird v. Brown is the authority on section 200- Read
illutsration of the bare acts. It also lays down the exception in section
200. Revocation of authority./

Drew v. Nun- Insanity of agent leads to revocation.

Cricket v. Badger- Section 203 and 204. Important case

Assignment of collateral to the bailee and bailors- bailment
If agents act goes beyomf its scope, it can be rationalised through
ratification. Termination or revocation cannot be done to injure the
agent, and if it is not justified by sufficient casue then it cant be
revoked.
If shantanu makes me his agent nd i enter into a contract for him, and
then he cuts me loose i breach the contract and am liable. Thats not
fair! hence this clause
Prahlad vs. Devi, Ramasthi v rakesh Chand, Drew v. Nun- authorities
on section 208.
duties of the agent to the principal- Section 211- general duties of the
agent, reasonable mans test. He has to follow the directions of thr
agent. Read with 188 ansd 187- scope and authority of the agent.
Section 212- Due diligence of the agent.
Kalu Ram v. chimmy ram- Section 215.
Mohindro lal chaterjee vs. Hari Ghosh- Au thority on 213- Therev are
two principals. One dies. The agency might or might not be
dissolved.The principals are joint then the agency goes on. If theyve
contracted thwerwise then not. The transactions have to be rendered
to the other pricmipal by the agent.
Kashi Ram v. Raj Kumar- Deals with section 208, and notice of
termination
froid vs Hassan- Section 219.
Section 221- Agents lien. Lien is always a possessory remedy. Ram
prasad mathur v. Madhya Pradesh Section 221 can be elminated with
a contract to the contrary.
Kavita Trilhan v. Hygiene- read page 10 and 11 only.

Umesh Goel v. Himalyan Corporative Society- Deals with section

69(3)- Main question is whether 69(3) is governed by the same
restrictions as 1 and 2 of section 69. It has top be read in connection
with the first 2 clauses.
Umesh is an unlosted partnership. Corprotaie socety invites tenders.
Umesh goels win it. He does the work. then there are diaputres
regarding construction. Himalayan took the case for arbitration. The
arbitrartor passed in Umesh’s favour. Challenged in court. Theyre
arguing that the arbitral award on the basis that the arbitral award
comes within the scope of other proceedings, and would be hit by 69,
and the unlisted partnership cannot thus enforce it. Arbitration is
completely separate from the contract of partnership. Its not related t
the partenrship contarct in any manner at all. Two arbitration acts are
present. Arbitration act and arvbitratina nd concilioation act. In the
first act, one had to go to court to confirm all those orders.
Te SC decision ion DR construction case is applicable here because
the claim is mad eon the basis of the arbitral award and not the
proceedings themselves.

There is nothing in section 69 which affects ana rbitral award.

sharath Vasant Kotak v. RAMNIKLAL mohanlal chawda -> In
maharshtra, you cannot file a suit for dissolution if you are an
unregistered partnership firm. Defendant dsays that this suit cannot
ber maintained because when the partner dies and when widow is
appoinyed as the new partner, therefore the partnership was
reconstituted. becasue this info was not given to the registrar this
renders the partenrship unregistered. This nullifies the registration of
the partnership. This contention is upheld by the BHC. Nariman
argues that there is nothin called a firm because a firm is not a
separate legal entity and partners are sued in theit own names. so
Whenever a partner leaves and anothe rone joins, it is tanatamount to
dissolution of the old partnership. No conceot of re constitutiton
which is applicable in the current context. Sorabji argues that looking
athe partnerhsip act itself, the act itself lays down that chpaters on
reconstitutiona nd dissolutoion. Section 44 would bot have eben
needed if dissolution happened every timr a partner leaves or joins the
firm. For the purposes of chapter 5 of the act, a partbnership firm is
treated as a legal entity. It wouldnt make sense to have section 31-38
if narimans arguments were legitimate. Sorabji won.

PARTNERSHIP
On the basis of agency, where every perosn is an agent for each other.
When someone in a partneship does ana ct, he is an agent for the
others. But he could be a principal as well when others are doing the
job for him. There have to be a minmum of two partbers required.
Partnership is only for the purpose of business. The partnership is
based on contract, no implied partnership. They cant become partners
through conduct or shit like that. registration of partnership firm is not
necessary(registrars office and shiz),, however, ceratin restrictions
apply to unregistered firms. ( V chapter).

Harshit Jshah v. LIC- Agent went to collect insurance from insuree,

but agency ddint have that authority. Insuree paid that agency. Guy
dies, his family sued for life insurance. They said they had given the
money to the agent. Court said that agency was not there.

Agent has SEPARATE lien policy.Not bailment lien.

Del credere agent- the agent says to the prinmcipal, that hell stnd up
for the principal; he guarantees the conduct of the principal.
Discussed in Gordon v. Shake. -> They were buying goods from one
party and selling it abraod. Were they agents or were they sells of
goods? The argument was that theyb aARe del creder agents.

Pucca adayat and kaccha adayat- for the first, in a mercantile agent
scenario, the principal also doesnt know who the third party is. In the
latter, the pricipal can ask the agent to tell him who the third party is.
154 is about obtaining compensation fot damage caused by
unauhtroised use of the bailed goods by the bailee.
Champaran cane concern- Coownership v. opartnership
Mutual agency- you must be able to act in other peoples stead.

Nuatis Waxene - 2 partner,s medical company, joint venture

agreement- dont fuck with each oither. One partner ends it and enters
another partnership and sells another rabies drug. Other partner says
that if you work for another company, it goes against my interests. If
you want to work for rival businesses, have a contract explicitly
allowing you to. Else, be ready to account for the profits.
Dyanchand- There was a contract syaing that you can work with rival
businnese. Hence, they did.

Addanki narayana appa v. Bhashkar- Fundamental case of partnership

property. Office space example- if you bring unique property to a
partnershuip property, it loses its uniqueness.
Apsala theatre case- Parthners own a cinema hall. One partner who
has the license is kicked out. The cinema is still hsowing the movie.
The other partner said that its now copmmon property.
Ganapati Saltowkr v. Gujarat- Lease is granted to a bunch of poor
individuals. The lease is non transferable and no engotiable. This
partnership group exploits them by bringijng them poor people as
partners and use their lease and kick them out.
The concept of estoppel is based on representation, based on what the
partner represents for the third parties.
If yiou dont register yout firm there will be several consequences- you
cannot bring suits on inter se disputes- suits between partners. You
cannot sue another partnership firms.
partnerd cannot bring inter se disputes arising out of any rights under
the contarct or thr e Indian Contract Act.
Partners cannot sue third parties under the contarct or the indian
contract act.
These provisions will also aspply to claims of set-off( i owe you 100
and now i takr 50. I strike off the 50s and now i owe him 50) and
other proceedings
Umesh Goel v. Himachal pradesh- Must be read with consonance
with PROV. 1 and 2.

SOGA
Fundamental concept of SOGA- EVERYTHING IS ABOUT SALES
TAX. What about a trasnaction where you have both a service and a
sales rax imposed? Cocnept of a composite contract comes in .
Element of Sale and element of service. For example, constructing a
house- buying all the cement and bricks etc. Service aspect is all the
people who built the shit.
In a restuarant for example, the sale of goods is the food. Service is all
the work done over the food, waiting etc. Over the counter buying is
chill. They’re not severable- sale aspect and service aspect cannot be
separated.
Indian Hyumein Pipes v. Rajasthan- A company has to manufacture
and install pipes. The government charged both taxes. They didont
want to do both. Goods Taxes are by the state, centre does the service
taxes. The constitution section 366 (29) A added by the 1982
amendment. before the amendment, to determine whether sales or
service tax was to be detrmined, they used the dominant intention
test- WHETHER THE MAIN INTENTION IS TO SELL OR
PROVIDE A SERVICE. Building a house for example is primarily to
render a service. Buying shit is ancillary. After 1982 amendment, 29
A was added. It has a list of case scearios in which both sales and
service tax would be imposed ON COMPOSITE CONTRACTS
ONLY. Examples- restaurant, construction. Dominant intention test
would be applied if the case doesnt fall under the case scenarios.
Work contracts which is a type of composite contract, is covered
under 29(A). Obviously the court held them liable fro both. All hire
purchase contracts are composite contracts. works contract is
indivisible., but for legal fivtion is divisible.
A hire purchase agreement -> A machine has an owner. He gives it to
me on a hire purchase agreement. I can use it, and pay for it in
instalments. Only when I pay the final instalment does the ownership
tranfer to me. With the advent of GST, the scenario is unclear.
Put goods into deliverable state doesnt count as providing a service.
(SOGA says that goods have to be deliverable)
Juggi Lal kamala pat v. Pratap Mal - Delas with section 18 and 23.
Theres a buyer and a seller. Seller has delivered goods to a mill. Seller
then selles it t the buyer, buyer is suppoised to go and get the goods.
Buyer has a documen tof title. When the buyer goes to the mill, mill
says that you have to register and do some formalities (because the
seller and the mill had some contract the buyer wasnt privy to). Buyer
argued that because of this agreement he didnt get what he was
paying for. Majority judgement agree with the buyer.
Damodar Valley Corp. v. State of Bihar- Argument is that there is no
sale. This sale diffrentiates between a sale and an agreement to sell.
This was in Bihar, and under its Act the definiton sale is wide enought
o cover hire purchase agreement for the purposes of tax. and this is
also the ratio.
Section 23(1)- IF THE SELLER gives a goods to a carrier to deliver
them to another party unconditionally, then the ownership passes to
the other party as soon as gooods are handed over to the carrier.,
Ram Niwas v. The Commissioner of Income Tax- Section 23(2) talks
bOUT UNCONDITIONAL APPRORPTIATION. The huyer has
delivered goods and the carrier has to deliver goods to the seller.
There are conditions attached, when the goods are delivered to the
seller he will weigh them and the remaining 90% is delivered to the
buyer and the latter can inspect them. This is conditional, hence above
provision doesnt apply.
Brittania Biscuits case of bailment- Based on section 24 of SOGA
Multan Mal v. CP Shah- Section 26- The loss caused to goods when
the goods are there is attributed usually to the seller. If ive paid for
goods, and the dseller is keeping the goods in his warehouse and they
somehow get damsged the seller is liable. If the goods have gone into
the buyers ownership or it was the fault of the buyer then the buyer
has to bear the risks. YOU CAN HAVE A CONTRACT TO THE
CONTRARY. In this case, there was a contract that stipulated that the
buyer was to bear all costs associated with the loss of goods.
Therefire, the buyer bore…..goods.
Usha v. State of Pujab -> Very good case on tranfer of
ownership.Read case.
Emperor v. Kunverji (1856) -> The liquor case -> The guy has a
liquor shoip. The law says you cant sell liquor outside the shop.
Servants take orders and money outside from buyers, go back,
ascretain the liquor required and pays the seller, then delivers the
liquor to the sellers’ homes. When did the sale happen? INSIDE THE
SHOP. Since the price already had been paid, and the goods had been
ascertained INSIDE the house, thats where the sale happens.
KOTAPALLY CASE - single transaction enough for partnership

VIVA SESH

Section 124 deals with osses caused by human agency. 124 is

restricted to contracts to indemnity, doesnt restrict indemnity as a
whole. Indemnity is not a contract opf uber immi fide, insurance is.
Idemnity is a promisr to save the indemnity holder from losses caused
by the indemnifier or third person.
Implied indemnity- An indemnity which is implied by the
facts and circumstances of the case.

Lala Shanti Swarup v. Munshi Singh -> There is an

owner of land and a buyer. There are old mortgages
which have not been paid off yet. The sale agreement
also includes the clause that the buyers will have to pay
the morgages. The buyers default in paying off
mortgages. Buyers argument is based on limitations
( the claim was to be raised for a certain time span). An
agreement in which the buyer agrees to relieve the
seller from encumberances on the property is an implied
indemnity. Now, if lala shanti swarup had sued them
under breach of contract, then he would not hav ebeen
able to recover the huge sum of money that he lost
when the mortgage owners sued him (previous to him
instituting a case).

Guarantee is a subset of indemnity. (126) Guarantee is

always tripartite. The implied indemnity is between the
PD and the guarantor where the PD agrees to indemnify
the guarantor.Guarantor has secondary liability. Section
28 exception 3 covers bank guarantee.

Mount Stephen v. Lakeman -> Mount stephen is a

worker at a sewage plant, Lakeman is a director,
Stephen says that hell only work if the comapny orders,
Lakeman says that do the work ill see that you are paid.
Question ios whther its an indemnity or a guarantee.
(lower court) Queens bench said that lakeman gave a
guarantee (company is PD), oral guarantee cannot be
imposed. Kings bench says that this is indemnity,as
Lakeman in this scenario is giving a promise in his
personal capacity. And for a contract of guarantee to
arise there has to be a third party. The company is
absent in this case. as company wasnt privy to the
contarct, Lakeman did it in his personal behalf, so hes
liable.

Bank guarantee, the PD gives collateral to the bank in

exchange for a bank guarantee which is then given to
the creditor in exchange for money. Creditor can cash in
this bank guarantee any time, Bank can then sue the PD
or sell off the collateral. Bank guarantees are the
lifeblood of the banks, banks want to increase their
creditwoerthiness.(lovelys words).

Unconditional bank guarantee. (“without delay, without

demur, and upon demand”). It cannot be stopped.
except on irretrievable injustice and egregious fraud.
Laid down by Bolivinter Oil v. Chase Manhattan, and
applied in

Itek Corporationv. First National Bank of Boston -> Itek

is a manufacturer of optics. It promises to manufacture
and give 20 million worth of optis to the Imperial
Republic of Iran. They take two bank guarantees from
the FNBB and the Bank Mellie. They have delivered 15
million worth of optics alkready, but Iran only has paid 10
million. Now, there is a coup and the Iranian bhostage
crisis happens when the US embassy is taken hostage.
The US freezes Iranian assets. Iran tries to invoke the
bank guaramtees. The banks want to pay, but is
suppressed by an SCOTUS injunction. They challenge
the Injunction, saying that once they pay and sell off the
collateral Itek can sue the republic of iran. The judge
says that this is not feasible as Iran has no assets. This
is egregious fraud as Itek is owed money, and YET
theyre owed money.

Conditional bank guarantee - without delay without

demur on proof of loss caused to creditor.

HCCL v. State of Bihar- PD has to do contractual work

for the creditor (chief enginner and executive engineer).
Bank guarantee given to the creditors.
The terms of the bank guarantee- The bank agrees to
pay unconditionally and ireevocably guarantee as
primary obligators without delay without demur…. in the
event that the obligations expressed in the AF clause
have not be fulfilled, and that the chief engineer would
invoke the guarantee. However, there is no proof that
the oblihations of the PD have been defaulted upon, and
the executive engineer invokes the contract. Thus
conditional guarantee.

Guarantee liability can be limited. If a guarantor

guarantees perfomance, and then the PD breaches, the
guarantor will get th collateral only when the creditor
gets his complete debt settled.

MOSCHI LEP AIR -> Rooloswin Industries (PD), Moschi

(head of rollowswin) and Lep Air Services (creditor). Pd
owed money to creditor, and moschi guaranteed PD for
40K (46K was the debt) an ALSO GUARANTEED
perfomance of paying off the debt. When PD defaukled,
lep air accepted the breach. Argument (formidable) was
that once the breach was accepted before the first
instalment of the debt became due, the contract is over
and the loan ceases ti exist. Court held that the famages
for the breach of the contract is still applicable in the
foirm of paying off the loan. Moschi will get collateral
once Lep Air gets its entire debt repaid. Subrogation
case

Continuing guarantee is for a series of transactions. It

can eb revoked at any time. Cant revoke guarantees for
transactions that have already happened. Continuing
guarantee- when you give a guarantee for a series of
transactions.section 131- if the guarantor dies his
continuing guarantee dies with him. Fidelity guarantee.
Llyod is a company that takes in underwriters. Its in their
bylaws that Lloyd can only kick out an emplyee for
insolvency. Harper wants his son to be emplyed and
guarantees his sons honesty and perfomance. Llyod
hires the son, Harper dies. Harper’s son sucks at his
job, and causes loss for Lloyd’s clients. Lloyd tries to
kick him out by the guarantee.Harper’s estate says that
the guarantee expired after his death. Judgement says
that the guarantee could have been revoked at any time
verbally, so it makes no sense to say that the guarantee
is no more, because a guarantee that guarantees
perfomance would be of no use to anyone if it could be
voided like this.
Second aspect- Lloyd is suing for their clients as
trustees. Argument is that there’s no privity, and that the
clients should sue themselves. Judgment says that if the
clients agree, Lloyd could sue, its chill

Subrogation- Guarantor stepping into the shoes of the

creditor. (Moschi Lep Air)
The liability of PD is co extensive with the guarantor
(section 128)

Gordon Woodroff v. Sheikh Majit- diffrentiate sbetween sale and

agency

Harshad Jay Shah v. LIC -> Agent of LIc to whom insurance

money is being paid. Clear policy of LIC that agents cant
collect money for insurance. Thus agent had no authority. The
isnured guy dies.LIC says that thye defaulted on the
payments. They said that they had paid to LIC, LIc says that
agent wasnt authorised. Apparent authority- If the principal
does an anct which induces the third party to believe that the
principal has given authorisation, the principal will be bound.
There is no apparent authority in tbis case.
Revocation of authority -> Seth Lun Karan v. Ivon E John -> The
plaintiff executed a power iof attorney in favour of the defendant
where the defendant is allowed ocntrol over the plaintiffs property.
Plaintiff appointed defendant as an agent to approproate the prioperty
according to their claims on the plaintiffs property. Later he tried to
revoke this authority. Court said that this was irrevocable, as it
attarcted section 202 of the ICA, that the termination is not possible if
the agent has interest in the subject matter of the agreement. In this
case the agent did have interest as they ere owed money by the
plaintiffs.

De bussche v. Alt- Sub agent and substitute agent -> The plaintiffs
have a ship and want to sell it. They appoint an agent who is unable to
buy a buyer, so they with the consent of the principal further appoint a
sub agent. Sub agent says that hell buy the ship himself. Sub agwnt
has not disclosed all material facts and circumstances. Sub agent buys
it and then sells it to a buyer for twice the price. The principal then
sues the sub agent for the profit. Question is what is the liability of the
sub agent? Court diffrentioates between sub and substitute agent,
becauuse a sub agent is an agent’s agent and a substitutr agent is
appointed and is diretly reposible to the rincipal. PEINCIPAL
SPLITS INTO AGENT WHO SPLITS INTO SUB AGENT.
PRINCIPAL SPLITS INTO AGENT AND SUBSTITUTE
AGENT.Sub agent is only liable to the agent and is liable to the
principal only in cases of fraud. Substitute agent is liable to the
principal.The agency of the substoitute agent did not end when he
bought the ship for himself, and hence he was liable. Also he didnt
reveal all material facts and thus he could not have said to have
acquisced to the transaction.
Keigh Ley Maxtead v. Durant -> case on ratification -> theres a guy
that hopes to enter into a transacrtion for a principal and that the
principal will ratify this act. The principal finds out and wants to
ratify. He can’t, as the judge distinguishes this case from an
undisclosed primcipal as in the scenario of an UP there exists a
principal. In the present case there wasnt a principal at all. Act is not
ratifiable. Undisclosed principle can never ratify.

Bolton v. Lamberg - > theres a company that has a board of directors

and a third party.The third party believing one director to be an agent
of the company makes an offer to him. The director accepts without
having the authority to accept. Then the third party wanted to revoke
the contract. The next day the board of directors decided tto ratify the
act of the individual directoe. The court says that from the perspective
of the third party, they made an offer and it was accepted, making a
legally acceptable contract (as ratification is retrospective). This is a
controversial case as it is said in the ICA that acts cant be ratified if
theyre injurioud to the third party.
The pre-exisitng relationship of agency is not required for ratification.
However in Keigh ley Maxtead the defendant wasnt even represented
as the agent.
Undisclosed principle case- Sed v. Butt- Theres a thatre that keeps
showing shows, the principal wants to attend a show but he had a
falling out with the theatre manageent and he cant purchase a ticket.
He gets an undisclosed principle. Identity of the principle was integral
to the transaction./
If the undisclosed principal enforces the contract, he will be liable.
Else onlu agent will be liable.
Attornment case - official asignee of madras The consent of the bailee
for a third party holding goods. Bill of leading is an exception. If
bailor gives away bill of leading to anyone, I become the bailee for
thaty person irrespective of my consent. In English law, bill of leading
can be pledged. Ipsa Corpora - document of title cant be pledged. In
india all documents of title can be pledged.

SOGA SESH
DIference between sale nd bailment - ownership versus possession.
reference nemo dat quad rule.
Sale- Agreement to sell and actual sale. Involves 2 elemnts- contract
and conveyance. conveyance- > tranfer of ownership. Delivery
(transfer of ownership) is fundamental to sale. Possessio o goods is
proof of ownership.
Twi breaches in SOGA - non repudiatory breach (the buyer has to
accept the goods and then can later sue for damages), and repudiatory
breach (voidable at the option of the buyer, since it is a fundamental
thing to the sale). Section 11-18 (conditions of warranty). Breach of
warrany is non repudiatory case, because it is not fundamental to the
contract of sale. Difference ebtween condition and warranty to be
decided by intention.
You cant have a sale of future goods (goods which are yet to come
into existence). You can have an agreement to sell.
TCS v. State of Andhra Pradesh - can software be counted as goods?
Which corporeal goods can be classified as goods? MUST READ
CASE. Price is mandatory for a valid sale.
Sellers need not be owners.
Agreement to sell is a right in personem; in an agreement to sell,
parties cannot clkaim specific perfomance. Sale is a right in rem. In
agreement to sale, there can be an action for breach of damages.
Physical delivery has nothing to domwith the tranfer of ownership,
ownership is determine d by the terms of the contract. Agreement to
sell lacks the tranvfer of ownership utpil the ascertained future date of
tranfer. Delivery is not sine qua non to the concept of tranfer of
ownership.
The risk of loss vis a vis goods i borne by the seller in an agreement
to sale. In a sale, the risk of loss of goods is associated with the buyer.
In order fo the sellers lien to be effective, the tranfer of property must
have been made to the buyer.
Under section 17, unless the bulk of the goods matches the sample,
thete can be no conveyance.
Kailash v. Patna MUniciap, corporation - They placed an order for
mosquito repellants. They got it, then claimed after 6 months that the
bulk did not match thne sample and that the quality was shit. Thne
court said that since you did not raise any obejction when the goods
were sold you cant say anything now. There was a warranty clause
saying that if any problem arises they will replace the sample. Thus
you vannot sue.
Sale of goods is based on caveat emptor. Section 16(1) has a
provision, it has to be read in consonance with 16(1). 16(2) does not
deal with latent defects. 16(4) is there is a awarrany ptovided under a
contract, that doesnt have to be violated under SOGA> You can in
your contract have your own defintion of a condition and a warranty.
HObson v. Bass- contract of perfomance guarantee?

1) Syndicate Bank v Channaveerappa Beleri and ors

In a anormal guarantee scenario, ideally the guarantor is
asuposoed to pay up oin his won as soona s the PD defaults.
Otehrise the creditoe can sue for a lack of perfomance. If the
debt against the PD becomes time barred, that doe snot
automatically discharge the guarantor (unoess oits time barred
against him). In an on demand guarantee, creditor has to
demand to be paid. and The guarantee demand has to be made
before the debt against the PD becomes time barred.
Dunne v. English - Primcipal and afgent has to buy a mine.
agent is colluding to secretively benefit at the principals
expense. Contract was repudiated by third party, and it ewas
held that agent shoukd ve held liable as all material facts were
not disclosed.
Anthony thomas case - 20% of cashews were bad,
fundamental part of the contract
Mathhew Varkey v. TC Abraham - Buyer sold it to the seller,
Plaintiffs car seixed by the police. There is a problem with the
sellers o. Police car.\
Lauram Bhagwati v. Bagwandas- The seller sent goods to the
buyer, buyer refuded to takw delivery saying th of the bulk
didnt match the sample. Bare act readinbg
Gulam v. State of J and K - Byter wanted timber for his
house, and on the basis of this promise to buy timber he
demlished the walls of his house later so that he could
replacve them witht imber. Seller increased timber price. The
timber seller said that the timber had not been ascertained and
the ascertained goods ahd higher price Courts held that this
was an agreement to sell and hence there was no vlaid suit.
∆
 ∆∆∆
∆∆∆∆∆∆

Escort v. Commissioner - The seller has a factory, according

tot he sellers contarct with the buyers the sale is always
complete at the factory gate (when they put it into transit at
the gate). In this case, the seller has gotten insurance for these
goods. The commissioner states that the seller is liable to tax
on this insuarnce fior the goods because they are in the
possession (it has not been transferred to the buyer). However,
the contract specified in the first line.
Chettiytar v. New express newspaper -> The newspaper is the
seller, chettiyar is the buyer. They hve a contarct wherein the
buyer 425 rolls of newspaper sheets from the seller, later on
they alter the terms of the contract orally, saying that theyll
only buy 300. The buyer didnt accept delivery, and the seller
ressold it at a lower price. Seller asking for deficiency from
resale. When the sale contarctb was finished, the oiwnership
was already tranferred to the buyer, when they orally changed
the contract ,ownership was voided. That sale agreement
became an agreement to sell. The seller didnt havre a right of
resell, you can only resell it if the ownership is with the buyer.
They cannot claim defiiciency from resell but they can claim
the difference from market price and contract price.
Partnerhsip cannot be implied from conduct.
Raptakos - Unlicensed partenrship they ahve lease to a land.
lease out this land, after the tenants stay has expired he refises
to move out. Allegation is based on two grounds - contract of
lease and law of the land (property act) . The tenants only
defence is that they are suing him for rights arising him out of
contarct of tenancy. Tenant loses on the klaw of the land
argument. Would subsequent regitsration make it valid?
NOBODY KNOWS.

Joint and severable liability - You can sue one or everyone

together.
Dheora Dhivan chand v. State - Read the brief.
Raigad concerete - Raigad has a cash credit policy with ICICI,
DICGC comes in and says that we can statutoriy ind,dneify
any institutiton we choose.It indemnies ICICI in case of ay
loss caused by R. Concrete. Raigad say that we wont pay
since DGCIC has paid. Court says that money hasnt been
appropriated, it has been placed inna suspense account.
Sumimoto v. ONGC- ONGC had a conctract with Sumimoto,
and sumimoto had a contract with sub contractor. Sub
contractor came across an extta tax, sumitomo had to pay, and
asks ONGC for money. It was held to be a valid tax, since
contract said that ‘all reasonale costs.’
STC v. UOI- Priorto 1988, export of silvr was illegal. Then the
government legalised it. Made a bodt, STC. Under this ody , a
local supplier who had silver would have a local contract with
the local supplier and contract of supply with foreigner. Then
silver was banned again. STC goes and says that if the foregin
buyre sues for non perfomance, then the local supplier will
have to indemnify us.
Associated british roadways -> There was a sipute as
towhether it wa si demnity or guarantee. It was a ’See to it’
contract (illsee to it youre paid), hence its guarantee. There
was a material alteration withoit the consent of the guarantee.
Mahatma Gandhi case - conditional guarantee has to be
ascertained by reading the whole case.
Radha kanta pal ->