Skip to main content

Contract of Indemnity

 CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY


INTRODUCTION:

It has been derived from the latin word ‘indemnis’ which means unharmed or undamaged. 

Section 124 – A contract by which one party promises to save the order from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a “contract of indemnity”. The contract of indemnity is a special type of contract, wherein, one party promises to indemnify/save the other party who is promised to be saved against the loss is known as ‘indemnified’ or ‘indemnity-holder’. The section defines a contract of indemnity as one under which the promisee promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the promisor’s conduct, or from the action of a third person. 

The term ‘indemnity’ literally means to make good the loss or compensate for the losses. 

SOME SPECIAL CASES OF IMPLIED INDEMNITY

Section 69: according to this section is a party who is interested in payment of money which another is destined by law to pay and therefore himself pays it, he is designated to be indemnified. 

Section 145: a party is provided with the right of the surety to claim indemnity from the principal defaulter for all sums which he has lawfully paid towards the guarantee. 

Section 222: this section provides for liability of the principal to indemnify the agent in respect of all amounts paid by him during the legitimate exercise of his power. 

RIGHTS OF INDEMNITY – HOLDER WHEN SUED (SECTION 125)

Section 125: rights of indemnity-holder when sued – the promisee is a contract od indemnity, acting within the scope of his authority, is entitled to recover from the promisor – 

  1. All damages: which he may be compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter to which the promise to indemnify applies.

  2. All costs: which he may be compelled to pay  in any such suit if, in bringing or defending it, he did not contravene the orders of the promisor, and acted as it would have been prudent for him to act in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to bring or defend the suit;

  3.  All sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such suit, if the compromise was not contrary to the orders of the promisor, and was one which it would have been prudent for the promisee to make in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to compromise the suit.

As per Section 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the following rights are available to the promisee/ the indemnified/ indemnity-holder against the promisor/ indemnifier, provided he has acted within the scope of his authority.​

  • RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES PAID IN A SUIT [SECTION 125(1)]: An indemnity-holder has the right to recover from the indemnifier all damages which he may be compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter to which the contract of indemnity applies.​


  • RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS INCURRED IN DEFENDING A SUIT [SECTION 125(2)]: An indemnity-holder has the right to recover from the indemnifier all costs which he may be compelled to pay in any such suit if, in bringing or defending it, he did not contravene the orders of the promisor, and acted as it would have been prudent for him to act in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to bring or defend the suit.​


  • RIGHT TO RECOVER SUMS PAID UNDER COMPROMISE [SECTION 125(3)]: An indemnity-holder also has the right to recover from the indemnifier all sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such suit, if the compromise was not contrary to the orders of the promisor, and was one which it would have been prudent for the promisee to make in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to compromise the suit.​

RIGHTS OF INDEMNIFIER

  • The rights of Indemnifier have not been mentioned expressly anywhere in the Act. These rights have been established purely on the basis of case judgements and court rulings on this matter. In Jaswant Singh v. Section of State (14 BOM 299), it was held that the rights of the indemnifier are similar to the rights of a surety under Sec. 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, where he becomes entitled to all the securities that a creditor has against a principal debtor whether he’s aware of them or not. ​


  • When a person agrees to indemnify, after such indemnification he becomes entitled to all the ways and means by which the original indemnity holder had shielded themselves from any loss or set up a compensation for that loss. Once he has paid for the damages caused, he steps into the shoes of the indemnity holder. This is called the principle of subrogation. ​
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more