https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198591 The court determined that the contract in question was one of indemnity, not guarantee. The plaintiff was held liable for a specified sum under a separate contract, regardless of the original contract's nature. Compromises made by the defendant with clients did not discharge the plaintiff's obligation, as the contract was one of indemnity. The defendant was entitled to compromise claims under the law, and the plaintiff failed to prove any loss resulting from the compromises. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the specified amount, minus any amounts already recovered by the defendant from clients, and to cover the appeal costs. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198591 The court determined that the contract in question was one of indemnity, not guarantee. The plaintiff was held liable for a specified sum under a separate contract, regardless of the original contract's nature. Compromises made by the defendant with clients did not discharge the plaintiff's obligation, as the contract was one of indemnity. The defendant was entitled to compromise claims under the law, and the plaintiff failed to prove any loss resulting from the compromises. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the specified amount, minus any amounts already recovered by the defendant from clients, and to cover the appeal costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Mar 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198591