MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI
NAME – SIDHI INDORIA
ENROLLMENT NUMBER – 2022093
SEMESTER – III
SECTION – B
TOPIC – CASE ANALYSIS - GAJANAN MORESHWAR PARELKAR VS MORESHWAR MADAN
MANTRI SUBMITTED TO – PROF. SANGRAM JADHAV
1|Page
CASE ANALYSIS - GAJANAN MORESHWAR PARELKAR VS. MORESHWAR MADAN MANTRI, 1942
(IN REFERENCE TO CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY)
INTRODUCTION
Following parties were involved-
▪ Claimant/Plaintiff– Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar.
▪ Defendant– Moreshwar Madan Mantri.
▪ Sitting Judges– Justice M. C. Chagla.
▪ Other(s)– Mr. Keshavdas M. (a materials supplier) & the Bombay Municipal Corporation
(hereafter referred to as the ‘BMC’).
FACTS OF THE CASE
In 1934, the BMC and the plaintiff entered into a 999-year lease agreement under which the BMC
provided the plaintiff with a specific parcel of land in exchange for the lease payment. The plaintiff
was then asked to transfer the benefit of that lease to the defendant. As a result, the defendant would
be able to begin building on that property right away. In agreement, the plaintiff gave the defendant
the same advantage of the lease. The defendant began building and employed Mr. Keshavdas
Mohandas as a supplier of building materials.
The supplies were provided by Mr. Keshavdas, but the defendant did not pay for them. Therefore, Mr.
Keshavdas was owed INR 5000 in accordance. In order to pay off the INR 5000, the defendant asked
the plaintiff to mortgage the land for a year with Mr. Keshavdas. The plaintiff continued in this
manner as a result. Mr. Keshavdas provided documents once more later. Once more, the defendant
failed to return the money. Once more, Mr. Keshavdas owed INR 5000. In order to repay the INR
5000, the defendant once more asks the plaintiff to mortgage the land with Mr. Keshavdas for a year.
The Plaintiff repeated this action. It is also important to keep in mind that by mortgaging this property,
the plaintiff (Gajanan Moreshwar) runs the possibility of Mr. Keshavdas simply refusing to return the
land's deed. However, there is an implied promise that the defendant will reimburse the plaintiff for
any losses since he is acting at the defendant's request. However, when the second mortgage takes
place, the defendant agrees in writing to pay off all mortgages and charges on the property as well as
to defend the plaintiff against any claims made by Mr. Keshavdas. The implied promise is no longer
there. It is now an express promise because there is a contract in place.
2|Page
Now, the plaintiff requests that the defendant pay the sum of INR 10,000 (5000+5000) and obtain the
official land deed in order to secure his freedom from all claims made by Mr. Keshavdas Mohandas.
The Defendant refused to pay and stated that since the Plaintiff had not actually incurred a loss, she
was not entitled to any compensation from the Defendant. As a result, the issue was brought up and
heard by the Indian Court of Law.
JUDGEMENT
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and stated that it will employ equitable principles similar to
those used in English courts, noting that Sections 124 and 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 do not
exhaust the law of indemnification. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff had not experienced
any loss and so was not entitled to compensation was rejected by the court. and decided that the
indemnification holder has additional rights not covered by the sections.
The assignment will follow up and research on the underlying points, such as, whether the contract of
indemnity was premature, the existence of an actual loss to claim money from the indemnifier, and
whether the plaint discloses any cause of action. The above-mentioned point will be dealt with
thoroughly in chapter five of the project.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Does an actual loss have to have occurred in order to be compensated by the indemnifier?
2. If the plaintiff had not yet suffered a loss, was this claim for indemnity premature?
3. Additionally, & incidentally, does the complaint reveal any causes of action automatically?
4. Does the complaint state a cause of action? (since the plaintiff has neither paid the debt nor
been ordered by court order, lawsuit, or judgment to do so.)
5. How has the scope of the Contract of Indemnity expanded after this judgment?
CHAPTERIZATION
The project on case analysis of Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar vs. Moreshwar Madan Mantri,
1942, in reference to Contract of Indemnity, has been divided into the following chapters-
1. Introduction, including brief facts of the case
2. Issues and arguments raised by Plaintiff and Defendant
3. Judgement of the Case
4. Critical analysis of the judgment
3|Page
5. Interpretation and analysis of the judgment in respect of the mentioned research questions
(Different Perspectives)
6. Scope of Contracts of Indemnity through the lens of English Law
4|Page
