Key Point: An indemnity holder can claim indemnity without waiting for actual loss if their liability is absolute.
What Happened:
What Happened:
- The plaintiff mortgaged property to secure loans for the defendant.
- The defendant failed to discharge the mortgages despite agreeing to do so.
- The plaintiff sought indemnity to avoid personal liability under the mortgage.
- The court held that the defendant must indemnify the plaintiff, as the liability under the mortgage was absolute.
- The defendant was ordered to release the plaintiff’s liability or pay the amount into court.
- Sections 124 & 125: The court clarified these sections are not exhaustive.
- The indemnity holder can sue when liability becomes definite, based on equitable principles.
Key Point: An agent acting in good faith based on the principal’s instructions is entitled to indemnity for losses incurred if the principal's representation is later found to be wrongful.
What Happened:
What Happened:
- Adamson (plaintiff), an auctioneer, sold cattle as instructed by Jarvis (defendant), who claimed to own the goods.
- It was later revealed that Jarvis was not the real owner of the cattle.
- The true owner sued Adamson for conversion (illegal sale of property) and was awarded damages of £1,195. Adamson also incurred £500 in legal costs.
- Adamson sought indemnity from Jarvis, arguing he acted in good faith on Jarvis’s representations.
- The court ruled in favor of Adamson, holding that:
- Adamson acted in good faith and without knowledge of Jarvis’s lack of ownership.
- Jarvis was liable to indemnify Adamson for damages paid to the true owner and legal costs incurred in defending the claim.
- Principle of Indemnity: An agent acting in good faith is protected and entitled to compensation from the principal if the principal’s representations cause loss.
- The case highlights the agent’s right to indemnity and establishes protections for innocent agents acting without knowledge of wrongdoing.
Citations: (1938) 40 BOMLR 868
Judge: Wright J.
Key Point: A person performing an act at the request of another is entitled to indemnity if the act turns out to injure a third party’s rights.
What Happened:
Judge: Wright J.
Key Point: A person performing an act at the request of another is entitled to indemnity if the act turns out to injure a third party’s rights.
What Happened:
- A government promissory note worth Rs. 5,000 was fraudulently endorsed by Acharya (a broker) and transferred to The Bank of India (respondent), who acted in good faith.
- The Bank applied for and obtained a renewed note from the Public Debt Office.
- The true owner, Gangabai, sued the government (appellant) for conversion and recovered damages.
- The government, in turn, sought indemnity from the Bank, claiming they acted on the Bank's request when issuing the renewed note.
- The court held that the Bank must indemnify the government:
- The government officer issued the renewed note based on the Bank's assertion of ownership.
- The government became liable because of this act, which injured the true owner's rights.
- Implied Indemnity (Common Law Principle): If an act, done at another’s request, unintentionally causes harm to a third party, the person performing the act can claim indemnity.
- Statutory indemnity under Section 21 of the Indian Securities Act, 1920, does not exclude the common law right to implied indemnity.
Citations: AIR 1984 GUJ 93
Key Point: Forbearance from taking legal action is valid consideration for a guarantee.
What Happened:
Key Point: Forbearance from taking legal action is valid consideration for a guarantee.
What Happened:
- Premco Saw Mill and its owner (Defendants Nos. 1 and 2) defaulted on loans.
- The bank issued a legal notice threatening action but paused after Defendant No. 3 (husband) agreed to be a guarantor and signed bonds.
- Defendants defaulted again, and the bank sued all three.
- The court held that the bank refraining from legal action (forbearance) was valid consideration under Section 127 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and Defendant No. 3 was jointly liable for the debt.
- Section 127: Forbearance to sue is valid consideration for a guarantee.
- Oral evidence is allowed if written terms wrongly state the consideration (Sections 91 & 92, Indian Evidence Act).
Key Point: A mere recommendation is not sufficient consideration for a contract of guarantee under Indian law.
What Happened:
What Happened:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant on a contract of guarantee.
- The plaintiff claimed the defendant's recommendation to provide financial help to third parties constituted consideration.
- The District Judge ruled there was no binding contract of guarantee because there was no valid consideration.
- The court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that:
- A recommendation does not amount to a request or desire under Section 127 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
- Without a clear desire or request from the guarantor, there is no valid consideration for the guarantee.
- Section 127, Indian Contract Act, 1872: For consideration to be valid, the guarantor must request or desire the act done for the benefit of the principal debtor.
- Key Principle: A recommendation is insufficient unless it clearly implies a request or desire by the promisor.
Key Point: The case examined whether a charge was created on properties for a debt under a guarantee and whether the creditor (not party to the deed) could enforce it.
What Happened:
What Happened:
- M.C. Chacko's father, K.C. Chacko, executed a guarantee for debts owed by the High Land Bank (managed by his son) to Kottayam Bank.
- K.C. Chacko later transferred properties via a deed to family members, specifying that liabilities under the guarantee would be settled by M.C. Chacko from the properties he received.
- Kottayam Bank sued to recover the debt, claiming a charge on the transferred properties.
- No charge was created: The deed merely allocated the responsibility for repayment among family members and did not intend to create a charge in favor of Kottayam Bank.
- Bank couldn't enforce the deed: As Kottayam Bank was not a party to the deed, it could not enforce the arrangement.
- Section 100, Transfer of Property Act: For a charge to exist, a deed must explicitly show the intention to create one.
- Privity of Contract (Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act): Only parties to a contract can enforce it, except in trust or family arrangements.
- Section 92, Evidence Act: Bars altering terms of a written contract through oral evidence.
Citation: AIR 1950 ALL 206
Key Point: The State is not liable for the loss of property caused by its servants when performing duties imposed by law.
What Happened:
Key Point: The State is not liable for the loss of property caused by its servants when performing duties imposed by law.
What Happened:
- Ornaments stolen from the plaintiffs' home were recovered by the police and kept in a government Malkhana (storage).
- These were later stolen from the Malkhana.
- The plaintiffs sued the Government of Uttar Pradesh for compensation, claiming negligence by its servants.
- No Contractual Bailment: The State was not a bailee, as there was no contract of bailment between the plaintiffs and the Government.
- Immunity in Sovereign Functions: The government’s servants acted under statutory obligations (police powers), which are sovereign functions, and thus the State is not liable for their negligence.
- Sovereign Functions: Actions performed under sovereign authority, such as police duties, are immune from liability.
- Respondeat Superior: Does not apply when servants act in discharge of legal obligations.
Citation: AIR 1966 BOM 134
Key Point: The government is liable for damages when its officers act illegally under statutory powers.
What Happened:
Key Point: The government is liable for damages when its officers act illegally under statutory powers.
What Happened:
- A Circle Officer illegally seized pledged goods (tobacco) from the plaintiff bank under an income tax recovery order.
- The goods were later damaged due to rains while in government custody.
- The attachment was illegal and unconstitutional under Article 31(1).
- The government was vicariously liable for the officer’s wrongful acts.
- Sovereign immunity does not apply to actions exceeding statutory authority.
Citation: 1967 SCR (3) 938
Key Point: The State is liable as a bailee to take reasonable care of seized property until its final disposal.
What Happened:
Key Point: The State is liable as a bailee to take reasonable care of seized property until its final disposal.
What Happened:
- Two trucks seized for alleged smuggling were left uncared for, resulting in significant damage and theft of parts.
- Despite the pending appeal, the trucks were auctioned as unclaimed property.
- The respondent sued the government for the trucks or their value after succeeding in the appeal against confiscation.
- Bailment Obligation: The State was deemed to have an implicit statutory duty akin to a bailee to preserve the property and take reasonable care until the confiscation order became final.
- No Contract Required: Bailment can exist without a contract when imposed by law, as in the case of a finder of goods.
- State’s Liability: The State failed to meet its duty, allowing damage and unauthorized auction. It was held liable to compensate the respondent for the value of the trucks.
Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1749
Key Point: The State is liable to compensate for property lost or destroyed while in its custody.
What Happened:
Key Point: The State is liable to compensate for property lost or destroyed while in its custody.
What Happened:
- Jewelry stolen from the appellant's house was recovered by the police and placed in a police station trunk under court orders.
- The trunk, kept in the Guard Room, was later found empty, and the recovered property was lost.
- The appellant sought compensation for the lost property but was denied by the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court.
- Custodia Legis: The property was deemed to be in the court's custody because it was produced before the Magistrate and retained under court orders.
- State's Responsibility: The State, as a custodian, failed to ensure due care and protection of the property.
- Compensation: The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation equivalent to the property's value, which was determined as ₹10,000.
Citation: 1967 SCR (2) 233
Key Point: A pawnee must be able to redeliver pledged goods to sue for debt recovery under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
What Happened:
Key Point: A pawnee must be able to redeliver pledged goods to sue for debt recovery under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
What Happened:
- Loan Agreement: Appellant (Lallan Prasad) advanced ₹20,000 to Respondent (Rahmat Ali) against a promissory note, with an agreement to pledge aeroscraps as security.
- Dispute: Lallan claimed Rahmat never delivered the goods, while evidence showed delivery occurred.
- Claim: Appellant sought to recover the loan amount, asserting the pledge did not materialize.
- Delivery of Goods:
- The Supreme Court found that Rahmat delivered the aeroscraps to Lallan, making Lallan the pledgee.
- Evidence included the appellant's control over the goods, restriction on respondent's access, and payment arrangements for removed goods.
- Right to Sue:
- Section 176 allows a pawnee to sue on the debt while retaining pledged goods or sell them after notice.
- However, to sue, the pawnee must be capable of redelivering the pledged goods upon repayment.
- Appellant's Claim Denied:
- Lallan could not claim the debt while retaining the pledged goods unless they were available for redelivery.
- The suit on the promissory note was dismissed due to this inability.
- Section 176, Indian Contract Act, 1872:
- Rights of a Pawnee:
- Retain goods as collateral security and sue for debt.
- Sell goods after reasonable notice to the pawner.
- Condition: Pawnee must be capable of returning the pledged goods if the pawner repays the debt.
Citation: 1965 AIR 1954
Key Point: A railway receipt can represent goods and enable a valid pledge, but proper notification to the bailee is required under the law.
Facts:
Key Point: A railway receipt can represent goods and enable a valid pledge, but proper notification to the bailee is required under the law.
Facts:
- A firm consigned goods worth ₹35,500 to Delhi, pledging the railway receipt to a Bank for ₹20,000.
- The Bank refused delivery, claiming the goods were not as described, and sued the Railway for compensation.
- Majority:
- A railway receipt symbolizes goods, and endorsing it validly pledges the goods.
- The Bank, as a pledgee, could claim full compensation under Sections 172 and 180 of the Indian Contract Act.
- Dissent:
- A valid pledge requires notifying the Railway (bailee), as per Section 178, which was not done.
- A railway receipt is not inherently negotiable without statutory or trade recognition.
Year: 1935
Key Point: A railway receipt is a document of title, and its pledge is equivalent to pledging the goods it represents.
Facts:
Key Point: A railway receipt is a document of title, and its pledge is equivalent to pledging the goods it represents.
Facts:
- The insolvents (C.K. Narayan & Sons) pledged railway receipts to the Bank (R) for advances on groundnut consignments.
- After insolvency, consignments arrived but were sold by the port authority to recover debts.
- The Official Assignee claimed the proceeds, challenging the Bank's lien over the goods.
- Privy Council:
- The Bank's lien was valid as pledging the railway receipts equated to pledging the goods, supported by:
- Section 178 of the Indian Contract Act (ICA)
- Section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA)
- The Bank’s hypothecation agreements with the insolvents created an equitable right allowing it to recover debts.
- The Bank's lien was valid as pledging the railway receipts equated to pledging the goods, supported by:
- Pledging a document of title equals pledging goods.
- Equitable rights protect a pledgee’s lien against claims from an assignee or third party.
Citation: [1901] AC 240
Key Point: An undisclosed principal cannot ratify a contract made without authority and purporting to be solely for the agent's benefit.
What Happened:
Key Point: An undisclosed principal cannot ratify a contract made without authority and purporting to be solely for the agent's benefit.
What Happened:
- Roberts purchased wheat on his own behalf at a higher price than authorized.
- The principal (K & Co.) later agreed to the price but did not fulfill the contract.
- Durant, the seller, sued for losses, claiming the contract was ratified by K & Co.
- A contract made by an agent in their own name without disclosing a principal cannot be ratified by a third party.
- Ratification requires that the agent’s actions purport to be on behalf of the principal at the time of the contract.
- No undisclosed principal can later step in to adopt the contract.
- Section 196 (Indian Contract Act): Ratification validates acts done by an agent without authority, only if done on behalf of the principal.
- Principle: Undisclosed intentions do not create obligations for third parties. A principal must be disclosed or identifiable at the time of the contract.
Citation: (1997) 5 SCC 64
Key Point: The Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) was not liable as the agent lacked actual and apparent authority to collect premiums after the grace period.
What Happened:
Key Point: The Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) was not liable as the agent lacked actual and apparent authority to collect premiums after the grace period.
What Happened:
- The insured handed a bearer cheque to an LIC agent after the grace period for premium payment had lapsed.
- The agent deposited the cheque with LIC the day after the insured’s death.
- LIC refused to honor the claim, stating that the policy had lapsed.
- No Apparent Authority: LIC agents were expressly prohibited by regulations from collecting premiums. LIC had not induced the insured to believe otherwise. Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, could not be invoked.
- No Constitutional Obligation Breach: LIC's rejection of liability was in accordance with its regulations, which were statutory and aimed at preventing fraud.
- Actual Authority: Arises from express or implied consent by the principal to the agent.
- Apparent Authority (Section 237, Indian Contract Act): Cannot be claimed where statutory provisions explicitly limit an agent’s powers.
- Constitutional Obligation: Article 14 requires fairness but does not override statutory regulations.
Citation: 1966 SCR 38
Key Point: An agent can sue the principal for accounts under special circumstances when transaction details are solely with the principal.
What Happened:
Key Point: An agent can sue the principal for accounts under special circumstances when transaction details are solely with the principal.
What Happened:
- The plaintiff, an agent, sought accounts from the principal (Surat firm) to claim commission.
- The firm denied the right, relying on a promissory note.
- Right to Accounts: Allowed in equity where the agent cannot determine commission without access to the principal's accounts.
- Sole Agency Breach: Surat firm violated the agreement by direct sales.
- Parole Agreement: Oral agreements as conditions precedent to enforcing the promissory note were valid under Section 92, Evidence Act.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now