Student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune, India.
A contract of indemnification can be considered in the same way as the promise of indemnity, which is one element of a contract with a considerably broader subject matter. When it comes to defining what an indemnity implies under Indian law, Section 124 of the 1872 Indian Contract Act only focuses on one sort of reimbursement and utterly refuses to coordinate what the judge should focus on circumstances where diverse types of indemnities, such as those originating from events, such as disasters, fail to contain the implicit form of indemnity. According to Indian law, the promisee cannot claim indemnification until he or she has not suffered any of the damages specified. This is contrary to the essential assumption of indemnification, which is that the promisee can only seek indemnification once the contract has been breached. An inability to reimburse for losses on one's own creates an enormous difficulty for the judiciary, as well as for the promisee, who is unable to do so on his or her own. This has led to confusion in the legal system, because of the disparity between the contract for indemnification and the promise to indemnify.
International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 5, Issue 3, Page 1963 - 1970DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.113274
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © IJLMH 2021