Search results
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 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.
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,
Jan 15, 2012 · 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.
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.
The landmark case of Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar vs. Moreshwar Madan Mantri established that a liability on the indemnity-holder that is certain and absolute would obligate the indemnifier to clear it off. 2682 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Kusumanchi Kameshwra Rao & Others2683,
When the suit was called on, Mr. Tendolkar for the defendant admitted all the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and raised only two issues to the effect (1) whether the plaint discloses any cause of action and (2) whether the suit was premature.
