TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1930 (5) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary of State for any loss arising either from defalcation or neglect during the period of his incumbency. On 7th August 1917, the defendants executed a security bond in favour of the plaintiff. 2. Mutsaddi Lal went on leave on 3rd August. The parties are agreed that the term of Hira Lal's incumbency during his officiating appointment lasted from 7th August 1917 to 12th October 1917, when Mutsaddi Lal returned and Hira Lal reverted to his substantive appointment as store-keeper. On 1st April 1919, Mutsaddi Lal went on leave for a second time, Hira Lal was again appointed to officiate in his place, Mutsaddi Lal appears to have submitted his resignation on or about the 15th July 1920, a date about the correctness of which we are by no mea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an officiating cashier or upon his confirmation to that office. 5. Under the terms of the surety bond the liability of the defendants was limited to a sum of Rs. 2,000. The defendants contended inter alia that the claim of the Secretary of State could in no case extend beyond the aforesaid amount. This plea found favour with the trial Court which, while repelling the plea of the defendants-appellants, that they were not liable at all, passed a decree against them for Rs. 2,000. This decree has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. 6. A contract of indemnity or a contract of guarantee may be created either by parol or by a written instrument. Ch. 8, Contract Act, is not exhaustive on the subject. A contract of guarantee nee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oorkee might have thought that the security bond which had been executed on 15th August 1917, was of sufficient amplitude to safeguard and protect the interest of the Government against any loss as might accrue during the second or subsequent incumbency. 9. The lower appellate Court was of opinion that the case before it was one of difficulty. It does not however appear that any subtle question of law or intricacies of facts were involved in the case. It has already been observed that the case hinged upon the construction of the document dated 15th August 1917, which was a vital document and was indeed the basis of the suit. The lower appellate Court does not appear to have considered the terms of the document. Indeed its findings proceed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pronouncement in Blest v. Brown [1862] 4 DGF & J. 367 It must always be recollected in what manner a surety is bound, You bind him to the letter of his engagement. Beyond the proper interpretation of that engagement you have no hold upon him. He receives no benefit and no consideration. He is bound therefore merely according to the proper meaning and effect of the written engagement that he entered into. 11. In order to determine the liability of the defendants-appellants, it is necessary to examine the nature and import of the recitals contained in the security bond. If the recitals are wide enough so as to continue the liability of the defendants-appellants in cases of successive appointments of Hira Lal to the same office, it may be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sureties) as his the said (principal) sureties and the said Secretary of State that on the vocation of the said (principal) of his said office of treasurer, Thomason College, the above-mentioned landed property for Rs. 2,000 or any notes that may be substituted therefore as aforesaid shall not be at once returned to him, but shall be and remain with the said (the authority with whom the notes are deposited) for the term of six months as security against any loss that may have been incurred by the Secretary of State owing to the neglect or default of the said (principal) or any other person or persons aforesaid and which may have not been discovered until after the vacation of disappointment by the said (principal); provided always that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is clear, to hold good during and for the consequence of this appointment in this office and not for any successive or subsequent appointment. Upon the expiry of the aforesaid appointment the security bond spent its force and no liability could attach to the defendants-appellants for any loss arising to the Government during the subsequent appointment of Hira Lal for which no engagement of security was given. 14. It is always unsafe to construe one document by referring to another document which is not pari materia in terms. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to cases of construction of documents the terms of which are neither parallel nor identical. There are, however, cases where a security bond has been executed in favour of ....