Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian contract act 1872 section 131 revocation of continuing guarantee by suretys death Court: mumbai

M/s. Mascon Multiservices and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Oman Re ...

Court : Mumbai

..... under clause 47 and was, therefore, barred from making such a claim. mr. andhyarujina would argue that clause 47 is void under section 28(b) of the indian contract act, 1872. section 28 of the ica runs thus: 28. agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void. every agreement, (a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely ..... of objects and reasons runs thus: statement of objects and reasons the law commission of india has recommended in its 97th report that section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 may be amended so that the anomalous situation created by the existing section may be rectified. it has been held by the courts that the said section ..... approach may be sound in theory but, in practice it causes serious hardship and might even be abused. 2. it is felt that section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 should be amended as it harms the interests of the consumer dealing with big corporations and causes serious hardship to those who are economically disadvantaged. 3. the .....

Dhanrajgirji Narsinggirji Vs. Tata Sons Limited

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1924Bom473; (1924)26BOMLR858

..... perusal of the judgments in bain v. forthergill, which affirmed the rule in flureau v. thornhill (1776) 2 w. bl. 1078, and the terms of section 73 of the indian contract act, it seems to me that the application of the rule is not necessarily excluded. the question must be answered on the facts and circumstances of each case whether that rule ..... not essential to decide the question as to whether the application of the english rule was necessarily excluded in india in virtue of the provisions of section 73 of the indian contract act, then macleod c.j. considered this question in ranchhod v. manmohandas i.l.r. (1907) 32 bom. 165, 9 bom. l.r. 1087, and held that section 73 imposed ..... the rule of english law laid down in bain v, fothergill (1874) l.r. 7 h.l. 158 is necessarily excluded by the terms of section 73 of the indian contract act. i am assuming for the moment that the rule might otherwise apply to the facts in this case i shall deal separately with the question as to whether in the .....

Shankar Nimbaji Shintre Vs. Laxman Supdu Shelke

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1940Bom161; (1940)42BOMLR175

..... plaintiffs' claim against defendant no. 2 must be held to be premature. it is clear from section s 124 and 125 of the indian contract act and article 83 of the indian limitation act that under a contract of indemnity the cause of action arises when the damage which the indemnity is intended to cover is suffered, and a suit brought before ..... promisor engages to save the promisee from loss caused by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person (s. 124 of the indian contract act). the cause of action for a claim against the promisor accrues to the promisee when the latter is actually damnified, and his suit is governed by article 83 ..... or discharge his liability to the creditor and the promise of the guarantor or surety is conditional on the default of that third party. under section 128 of the indian contract act his liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and the cause of action accrues as soon as the latter commits a default, so that under .....

Dhanrajgirji Narsinggirji Vs. Tata Sons Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 92Ind.Cas.225

..... : 23 w.r. 261 which affirmed the rule in flureau v. thornhill (1776) 2 w.m. bl. 1078 : 96 e.r. 635 and the terms of section 73 of the indian contract act, it seems to me that the application of the rule is not necessarily excluded. the question must be answered on the facts and circumstances of each case whether that rule ..... not essential to decide the question as to whether the application of the english rule was necessarily excluded in india in virtue of the provisions of section 73 of the indian contract act. then macleod, (unconsidered this question in ranchhod bhawan v. manmohandas ramji 32 b. 165 : 9 bom. l.r. 1087 and held that section 73 imposed no exception on the ordinary ..... . fothergill (1874) 7 h.l. 158 : 43 l.j. ex. 243 : 31 l.t. 387 : 23 w.r. 261 is necessarily excluded by the terms of section 73 of the indian contract act. i am assuming for the moment that the rule might otherwise apply to the facts in this case. i shall deal separately with the question as to whether in the .....

State Bank of India Vs. Moti Thawardas Dadlani and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR483

..... which the person indemnified might have protected himself against or reimbursed himself for the loss.the indian contract act, ix of 1872, section 141, applies this principle to the contract of suretyship: but sections 124 and 125. which deal with the contract of indemnity, are silent on this point only the rights of the promisee are slated ..... aspect too is not dealt with in the indian contract act. it obviously cannot be dealt with by the indian contract act as, as observed earlier, the right of subrogation in respect of a contract of indemnity is. itself not dealt with in the indian contract act.120. section 140 of the contract act reads as under:section 140 rights of surety ..... indemnity-holder has other rights besides those mentioned in section 125.115. the rights of the indemnifier have not been exhaustively dealt with in the indian contract act. the rights conferred on a surety under section 141 have not been conferred expressly on an indemnifier. section 141 reads as under:141. surety's .....

M/s. Visakha Petroleum Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.L. Bansal, Sole Arbitr ...

Court : Mumbai

..... the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent. amendment to section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 reads thus:- section 28. agreements in restraint of legal proceedings void : every agreement, -- (a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing ..... was barred by law of limitation. the petitioner stood discharged of its liability accordingly which was much prior to the amendment to section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872. learned counsel distinguished the judgments of the supreme court relied upon by the respondent no.2. it is submitted that since the liability of the ..... april 2012 in fao(os) 382 of 2007. 20. learned counsel placed reliance on the objects and reasons of amendment to section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 in support of the submission that the said amendment was made effective with retrospective effect. learned counsel also placed reliance on the ninety-seventh report of .....

Union of India (Uoi) Through Textile Commissioner Vs. Bhagwati Cottons ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR63; IV(2008)BC73; 2008(5)BomCR909; 2008(2)CTLJ180(Bom)

..... stood relieved and discharged from all their liabilities. according to the defendant no. 2 bank, the plaintiffs were ill-advised to rely on section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 which amendment had no impact on the contractual obligation qua the defendant no. 2 bank. on the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendant no. ..... 2 stood discharged of the liabilities under the said guarantees.38. this stand, however, is refuted by the plaintiffs relying on the amended section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872. according to the plaintiffs, by virtue of the said amendment, it is no longer open to the defendant bank to contend to the contrary.39. before i ..... may be sound in theory but, in practice, it caused serious hardship and might even be abused. 2. it is felt that section 28 of the indian contract act, 1872 should be amended as it harms the interests of the consumer dealing with big corporations and causes serious hardship to those who are economically disadvantaged.3. the .....

The Official Assignee Vs. Madholal Sindhu

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1947Bom217; (1946)48BOMLR828

..... pledgee of mr. nissim. the answer to this question must depend on the position with regard to the bank's power of sale.56. the indian contract act of 1872 applies to all contracts in india and with regard to a pawn is a codification of the english common law. speaking of the common law right to sell mr. justice ..... marked contrast between the two; while one protects the innocent purchaser, the other does not do so. in the absence of any provision in section 176 of the indian contract act in favour of the innocent purchaser, to import such protection from the provisions of another statute is, again, with respect, wholly fallacious and unjustifiable.82. in johnson ..... to question 4 and involves the allegation that mr. nissim waived any notice which it is incumbent upon the bank to give under section 176 of the indian contract act.22. the sixth question is with reference to an allegation that the official assignee is estopped from disputing that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the shares .....

Dinanath Damodar Kale Vs. Malvi, Mody, Ranchhoddas and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1930Bom213; (1930)32BOMLR272

..... kishan das i.l.r. (1897) all. 489 where it was stated that a deposit is a payment actually made or advanced and therefore sections 73 and 74 of the indian contract act have no application in such a case and are not intended to apply to it. these sections show what is the compensation to the seller, who is not responsible for ..... wrong in finding that the forfeiture of this twenty-five per cent, was a reasonable compensation to the respondents for breach of the said contract.10. in the learned trial judge's view section 74 of the indian contract act was applicable, as in his opinion the condition in question was in the nature of a penalty. section 74 does not in terms deal ..... is seeking to recover compensation for the breach. they do not contemplate a case in which a sum of money has been paid by way of earnest. nor is the indian contract act necessarily exhaustive (see p. b. & co. v. bhagwandas i.l.r. (1909) 34 bom. 193 7. furthermore, it is to be noted that in this particular .....

Pallonjee Eduljee and Sons Vs. the Lonavala City Municipality

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1937Bom417; (1937)39BOMLR835

..... light. the deposit ought to be considered on the terms on which it was made,-as resulting from a stipulation by way of penalty within the terms of the indian contract act, section 74. on that stipulation, the defendants were not entitled, in accordance with section 74, to enforce the penalty in terms, but to receive from the ..... from the lower court on the question as to the amount of the compensation that the plaintiffs are entitled to, on the basis of section 70 of the indian contract act, in respect of the beef market and the slaughterhouse put up by the plaintiffs on the municipal sites.13. there is one other point that was argued ..... market and the slaughter-house, the plaintiffs had to fall back upon the provisions of sections 65 and 70 of the indian contract act.3. section 65 of the indian contract act again proceeds on the basis of there having been a contract, so that the plaintiffs cannot claim its benefit. but the other section relied upon,-section 70-applies,-unless the argument .....