Contractual indemnity remains open where a related issue was not specifically raised or decided in earlier proceedings.

Observations on frustration of export contracts did not conclusively determine the separate question whether the appellant could claim indemnity against Indian suppliers if foreign buyers later asserted claims. Because that indemnity issue was neither specifically raised nor adjudicated, it could not operate as a binding bar in future proceedings. The Court left the matter open to be decided on the facts of any actual claim, and the appellant remained free to raise its contractual indemnity right if the contingency arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's observations on frustration of the export contracts precluded the appellant from asserting its contractual right of indemnity against the Indian suppliers in any future claim by foreign buyers.

Analysis: The question whether the indemnity clause in the business associateship contract would apply to a claim, if any, made by foreign buyers against the appellant was not specifically raised before the High Court and was not adjudicated by it. The observations made by the High Court on frustration of the contracts could not be treated as a conclusive determination on that distinct question. Since the issue depended on the facts of a future claim and had not yet arisen for decision, it was left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings if the contingency actually occurred.

Conclusion: The appellant was not precluded from raising the indemnity claim in future proceedings if it became necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: Observations on a question not specifically raised or decided do not operate as a binding determination on that question and do not bar the parties from agitating it in appropriate future proceedings.

---