Main Article Content



The Contract of Indemnity is a wide used clause used frequently within the mercantile fraternity. However, the same has been down written in the Indian Contract Act under two sections, namely, 124 and 125. There is yet an ongoing dilemma whether the two clauses cover implied indemnity within its ambit and on when does the indemnity contract comes into play in favor of the promisee. Moreover, there is ambiguity on whether the term indemnity is synonymous to the terms such as damages, compensation, reimbursement and restitution. The following article distinctly attempts to resolve these obscurities. Furthermore, there are frequent mercantile disputes where the crystal yet coinciding line between indemnity, insurance and subrogation are blurred out. Therefore, the author comes up with a concentric circle mode of solution to resolve the entire vagueness of the Indian Contract of Indemnity, 1872. In addition to this, the author has also pointed out that despite the two sections being looked down upon as being a narrow scope of indemnity to be compatible with the transnational disputes; if the contemporary precedents being taken into account and the parent contract of indemnity is examined cautiously, the two plain sections are a massive ground to rely upon while resolving contemporary transnational as well as domestic trade disputes on indemnification. Lastly, the author recommends a few suggestions that can be taken into account while resolving the civil law disputes of indemnification in the contemporary era unless a massive amendment is undergone by Sections 124 and 125 of the Act, 1872.

Article Details

Public Law
Author Biography


Ankita Kalita1, Damodar Hake2, Raj Varma3*, Ashutosh Panchbhai4 and Abhijit Vasmatkar5

1Student, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)

2Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)

3Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)

4Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)

5Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School (SLS)

 Symbiosis International (Deemed University) (SIU),
Vimannagar, Pune, Maharashtra, India


Krishnaswamy Iyer v. Thatha Raghaviah Chetti, AIR 1928 Mad. 43.

In Re Gray, decd., [2004] EWHC 1538 (Ch)

Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Small Industries Development Bank of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 258

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., 1999 SCC OnLine Mad 1066

Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Quad Beng Kee (PENANG), Privy Council Appeal No. 37 of 1923

Darrell v. Tibbits, L.R. 5 Q.B. Div. 560-C A (1880); Castellain v. Preston, [1883] 11 Q.B.D. 380

Roberts v. Crowe, (1872) LR 7 CP 629; Moule v. Garrett, (1872) LR 7 Ex 101

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Government of India, Ministry of Law, The List of Acts and Adaption Orders amending the Act, (last accessed 17th June, 2022)

Dalby v. India and London Life Assurance Co. (1854) 15 CB 365; Bradburn v. Great Western Railway Co. (1874) LR 10 Ex I

M. Lakshman Marasinghe, An Historical Introduction to the Doctrine of Subrogation: The Early History of the Doctrine II, Vol. 10, Valparaiso University Law Review, 275-299. (2011)

Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury: Report Vol. 3 (Command 7054-III)

Tropical insurance Co. v. Zenith Life Insurance Co., AIR 1941 Lah 68

Sheffield v. Barclay and ors. HL 3 jul 1905; Dugdale v. Lovering, 1875; Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Anr v. Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Anr, ChD 23 May, 2006; Stanley Yeung Kai Yung and another v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation PC 1980; Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996

Reynolds v. Doyle, (1840) 1 Man & G 753; Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yochendra Bahadur Garu v. Sobhanadri Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu, (1948-49) 76 IA 120

Anthony Murray Gleeson, Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture 2007: Australia’s Contribution to the Common Law, (2008) 20 SacLj 1

Kadiresan Chettiar v. SpRMRm Ramaswamy Chettiar, (1947) Mad 58

J. Gleeson & N Owens, Dissolving Fictions: What to do with implied indemnity? 25, Journal of Contract Law 135 (2009)

Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 49, Financial Services and Institutions. (5th Ed. 2008)

Secretary of state v. Bank of India Ltd., AIR 1938 PC 191; Jyoti Prfasad Jay Gopal v. Kartar Singh Sahib, AIR 1960 Punj 425

Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri, (1942) 44 BOMLR 703; Khetarpal Amarnath v. Madhukar Pictures, AIR 1956 Bom 106

13th Law Commission of India Report, (Government of India)

Krishnaswamy Iyer v. Thathia Raghavian Chetry, AIR 1928 Mad 43; Daw Nyun v. Maung Nyi Pi, AIR 1938 Rang 359


South Eastern Rly v. Amarendra Nath Sarkara, AIR 1967 Cal 119

Supra, AIR 1928 Mad 43

Smith v. South Wales Switchgear Ltd. (1978) 1 All ER 18

Vania Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1991) 4 SCC 22

HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd. v. JLT Risk Solutions Ltd. [2007] EWCA Civ 710

Ultrarech Cement Ltd. v. Sunfield Resources Pty. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 10023

Dhapai v. Dalla, AIR 1970 All 206

Messrs. B.R. Herman and Mohatta v. Asiatic Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 1941 Sind 146

Bhagwan Das Sobhalal Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 M.P. 95

Dhulipudi Namayya v. Union of India, AIR 1958 AP 533; Tata Engg. And Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Bharat Mining Corpn. Ltd., AIR 1980 Bom 168

Narsimha Mudali v. Potti Narayanasami Chetty, AIR 1926 Mad 118; Imamali Abdul Kadar v. Rani Priyawati Devi, AIR 1937 Nag 289

Komu Kutti v. Kumara Menon, AIR 1919 Mad 367

Pulavarti Sitaramamurty v. Bangaru Sobhanadri, (1950) 2 Mad LJ 505; Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619

Deepak Bhandari v. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine SC 74

Wayne Courtney, Indemnities and The Indian Contract Act 1872, 27 (1) NLSI Rev 66 (2015)

Aston, Joshua, Identifying and comparing the trends in international contract laws and probing the critical issues for multinational contracting parties/ Joshua Aston (ed) (2016)

Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 3 SCR 556

Chunibhai Patel v. Natha Bhai Patel, (1944) 22 Pat 655; Abdul Majeed v. Abdul Rashid, AIR 1936 All 598

Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Pawna and Others,(2015) 5 SCC 617

Tarachand Ghanshyamdas v. Commissioner of income tax, 1983 139 ITR 571 Cal

Sec. 31, Indian Contract Act, 1872

State Bank of India v. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 2361

Shankar Nimbaji Shintre v. Laxman Supdu Shelke, AIR 1940 Bom 161; Sham Sundar v. Chandu Lal, SIR 1935 Lah 974

Ranganath v. Pachusao, AIR 1935 Nag 147

In Re: British India General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1971 Bom 102

Chand Bibi v. Santosh Kumar Pal, AIR 1933 Cal. 641; Jacob v. Down, (1900) Ch. 156 foll

Supra note 37

Ramalingathudayan v. Unnamalai Achi, (1915) 38 Mad 791

Hoy v. Hansborough (Miss. 1843) 1 Freem. Ch. 533

Cohen, Impleader: Enforcement of defendants’ Rights Against Third Parties, 33 Col. L. Rev. 1147. (1933) last accessed 8th June, 2022

Art. 13, Indian Const, 1950

N. Bimal, Patel, et al, International Contracts: Jurisdictional Issues and Global Commercial and Investment Governance (A Collection of Essays on Recent Trends), GNLU, (2014)

Abdul Hussain Shaikh Gulamali Jambawalla v. Bombay Metal Syndicate, AIR 1972 Bom 252

James O. Rodner, Assignee’s Right and Obligation to Arbitrate Under Civil Law and the Peruvian Long Arm Rule, 8.1, IJAL (2019) 106

Komu Kutti v. Kumara Menon, AIR 1919 Mad 367

Re Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society Ltd., Liverpool Mortgage Insurance Co.’s Case, (1914) 2 Ch 617

Charter Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Fagan, (1996) 1 All ER 406 (CA)

Sec. 124, Indian Contract Act, 1872

N.K. Indrayan, Theoritical Basis of Law of Contract, 38 JILI (1996) 212

B.A.S. Chopra v. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 Cal. 35; Chandamull Jain v. General Assuarance Society Ltd., I.L.R. 29 Cal. 558

`Smith v. South Wales Switchgear Ltd., (1978) 1 All ER 18; Gillespie Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. Roy Bowles Transport Ltd., (1973) QB 400

[2014] 3 SLR 609

(1955) 132 ALR 133

[1990] 1 QB 1; [1945] KB 65 at 71

Marquette Transp. Co. Gulf-Inland LLC v. Unknown Potential Claimants, 106 F. Supp. 3d 844 (S.D. Tex. 2015)


Louis A. CHARLES, Jr. v. Jason GERVAIS, Board of Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans and Redland Insurance Company, No. 2014-CA-0447

German Insurance Contract Act 2008 & Insurance Act 2015 UK

M.V. Kratenko, O.-J. Luik, Modern Concept of indemnity insurance and prospects for its implementation in Russian Law, 50 PERM U. HERALD JURIS. Sci. 762 (2020)

Texas Dept. of Transportation v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris County, Texas—Appeal from 281st District Court of Harris County

Supra note 10

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Pers., Inc., 768 S.W.2d 724 (1989)

Luik O.J., The Application of Principles of European Insurance Contract Law to Policyholders of the Baltic States: A Measure for the protection of policyholders: a PhD Thesis in Law, University of Tarty Press, 227, 2016.

Id last accessed 8th November, 2022.

Clause 1, Article 929 of the RF Civil Code

Chan Wai Meng, Ng Kok Thye and Lee Sai Leong, Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy: A Need to Reform in Malaysia, Vol. 5 (1), 131-136. (2007)

Lord Simonds (editor), Halsbury’s laws of England, London, Butterworth and Company Ltd.’ (3rd Ed. 1958)

Robert E. Keeton & Alan I. Widdis, Insurance Law, Sec. 3 (10) (b)

Hindustan Corporation pvt. Ltd. v. United India Fire and General insurance co. Ltd. Hyderabad, 1996

Michael Sean Quinn, Subrogation, Restitution and Indemnity, 74 TEX.L.REV.1361 (1996)

Employer’s Health Ins. V. General Casualty Co., 469 N.W. 2d 172, 181; Cunningham v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 360 N.W. 2d 33, 36-39

Brooks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 599 So. 2d 1163, 1165-66, Dedes v. Strickland, 414 S.E. 2d 134, 136 (S.C. 1992)

Simpson v. Thomson, [1877] 3 App. Cas. 279

Robert W. Emerson, Insurance Claims Fraud Problems and Remedies, 46 U. Miami L. REV. 907. (1992)

Burnand v. Rodicanachi, (1882) 7 AC 333

Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Caledonian Insurance Co., AIR 1965 Mad 159

Supra note 62

Supra (1882) 7 AC 333

Trustees of the port of Madras v. Home Insurance Co. Ltd., LNIND 1967 Mad 173

Marine Insurance (British shipping laws Vol. 10, Pg. 1193)

Supra note 65

Law Commission Report