Trace Your Case

Author: TYC

Categories
PLEDGE

Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali, AIR 1967 SC 1322

ISSUE:

Whether the first respondent pledged certain quantity of aero scraps purchased by him from military authorities at Bamrauli Depot, Allahabad and delivered possession thereof to the appellant?

Whether the appellant was entitled to any relief when his case was that the first respondent never delivered to him the said goods and the said agreement never ripened into a pledge?

RULE:

Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, deals with the rights of a Pawnee and provides that in case of default by the pawner the Pawnee has (1) the right to sue upon the debt and to retain the goods as collateral security, and (2) the right to-sell the goods after reasonable notice of the intended sale to the pawner. So long, however, as the sale does not take place, the pawner is entitled to redeem the goods on payment of the debit.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
BAILMENT

State of Gujarat v. Memon, AIR 1967 SC 1885

ISSUE:

Whether the State was liable to compensate the respondent?

RULE:

There can be bailment and existence of a 'relationship of a bailor and bailee in respect of specific property without there being an enforceable contract. Nor is consent indispensable for such a relationship to arise.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
BAILMENT

Kaliaperumal Pillai v. Visalakshmi, AIR 1938 Mad 32 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the delivery of the good took place in this case

RULE:

Under the provisions of Sections 148 and 149, Contract Act, delivery is necessary to constitute the bailment. It is true that the delivery may be made by doing anything which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the intended bailee; but the mere leaving of the box in a room in the defendant's house, when the plaintiff herself took away the key of that room, cannot certainly amount to delivery within the meaning of the provision in Section 149.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
BAILMENT

R D Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264 

ISSUE:

Does the advocate have a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his client?

RULE:

A thing to be considered a good under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, should have marketability and the person to whom it is bailed should be in a position to dispose it of in consideration of money. Goods referred to under s. 171 are saleable goods. In this case there is no scope for converting the case files into money, nor can they be sold to any third party and reliance to s. 171 cannot be placed.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
GUARANTEE

Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad, (1969) 1 SCR 620

ISSUE:

Whether the plaintiff can recover the amount from the guarantor or does he have to wait till he has exhausted his remedies against the defendant?

RULE:

It is the duty of the surety to pay the decretal amount. On such payment he will be subrogated to the rights of the creditor under s. 140 of the Indian Contract Act and he may then recover the amount from the principal.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
GUARANTEE

Anirudhan v. Thomco’s Bank, AIR 1963 SC 746

ISSUE:

Whether a document jointly executed by two person creating a liability equal for both is to be regarded as materially altered if the liability is reduced equally for both but the alteration is made only by one of them?

RULE:

At the stage when the alterations were made, the principal debtor had been acting for and on behalf of the appellant as the appellant had been standing surety for him. The plea of avoidance of contract by material alteration was of no avail to the appellant because the document was not altered while in possession of the promisee but was altered by the principal debtor who was at the time acting as the agent of the appellant.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
INDEMNITY

Gajanan Moreshwar v. Moreshwar Madan, A.I.R. 1942 Bom, 302

ISSUE:

Whether the suit for indemnity was premature as the plaintiff had not yet incurred any loss per se?

RULE:

If the indemnity-holder is to wait till a judgment is pronounced, and it was only after he had satisfied the judgment that he could sue on his indemnity, it is clear that this might under certain circumstances, throw an intolerable burden upon the indemnity-holder. Accordingly, if the liability of the indemnity-holder has become absolute, then he is entitled either to get the indemnifier to pay off the claim or to pay into Court sufficient money which would constitute a fund for paying off the claim whenever it was made.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now