Search results
Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri on 1 April, 1942. Equivalent citations: (1942)44BOMLR703, AIR 1942 BOMBAY 302. JUDGMENT. Chagla. J. 1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to enforce an indemnity.
Dec 1, 2021 · FACTS. In 1934, the plaintiff (Mr. Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar) and the BMC had a lease agreement for a period of 999 years, whereby BMC gave the plaintiff a particular piece of land in exchange for the lease amount. The defendant (Mr. Moreshwar Madan Mantri) then asked the plaintiff to transfer the benefit of that lease to him.
Gajanan Moreshwar v. Moreshwar Madan (1942) 44 BOMLR 703 (Section 124 of Indian Contract Act, when indemnity can be claimed) FACTS: Plaintiff (P) got a plot of land on lease from municipal corp. of Mumbai. P allowed Defendant (D) to erect building on that land. D, in this course, incurred debt of Rs.5ooo from building material supplier (K), twice.
ANALYSIS OF GAJANAN MORESHWAR PARELKAR V. MORESHWAR MADAN MANTRI (1942) 44 BOMLR. 703 & INSIGHT ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF LIABILITY UNDER THE CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY Mr. Parthik Choudhury, B.B.A. LL.B., Army Law College, Pune, Maharashtra-412106 ABSTRACT Contract act was usually formulated and implemented by the British in India,
- Introduction
- Origin and Growth of Contract of Indemnity Under English Law
- Provisions Under English Law and Its Enforceability
- Origin and Growth of Contract of Indemnity Under Indian Law
- Provisions of A Contract of Indemnity Under Indian Law
- Rights of Indemnifier
- Conclusion
- References
Contract of Indemnity can be defined as doing something good for a person who is suffering any loss or helping him like that his previous condition has been restored. “Indemnity can be considered as sub-species of compensation or damages” whereas contract of indemnity can be treated as species or a type of contract, more specifically the contract o...
The principle of contract of indemnity originated under English law in the landmark judgment of Adamson v/s Jarvis.
Basically, contract of indemnity is a wider concept in English law as compared to Indian law, because in English law all the matters are looked upon which are related not only because of the acts of some individual but also arises from some event or accident in case of fire or act of God. In order to define the contract of indemnity under English i...
In India, the contract of indemnity originated in the case Osman Jamal & Sons Ltd v/s Gopal Purshotam. These are the facts of the case:
Contract of indemnity under Indian law is a narrow concept because the matters in which human beings are involved which is prescribed under Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. Indian law only covers expressed contracts of indemnity. The essentials of contract of indemnity are as follows: 1) There are two parties, indemnity holder and indem...
As we talk about the rights of indemnifiers are not given under contract of indemnity but they have similar rights as the same as given in guarantee. The major difference between the two is as follows-
In India, all matters are looked upon where losses are incurred due to the promisor himself or any other third party whereas in England all the matters are looked upon where a loss incurs from any person as well as from any accident. The original rule in England was that first indemnity holder incurs a loss then he will be indemnified but further t...
- Ayush Verma
Jan 8, 2024 · Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri on 1 April, 1942. Facts: 1. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay in 1934 to lease a plot of land (No. 226A of the Dadar Matunga Estate) for 999 years. 2.
People also ask
Who vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri?
What was the process of transformation in Gajanan Moreshwar vs Madan Mantri?
What is the case law of Moreshwar Madan?
Why was G Moreshwar entitled to be indemnified by M Madan?
Jun 5, 2020 · FACTS. In this case, the plaintiff had procured and brought possession of a plot from Bombay Municipal Corporation on the lease of 999 years in 1934 but, since he didn’t make use of it, the defendant entered into play and on the defendant’s request, the possession was handed over to him.
