Author: Gauri Dua, B.A. LL.B, 1st Year, New Law College, Bharti Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Pune The article has been written by the author while pursuing the internship programme with us. INTRODUCTION: Contract of Indemnity implies doing good to the individual who has endured misfortune or returning the individual to a similar situation as though no misfortune has happened. Indemnity is a sub-group to compensation and contract of indemnity is a group to contract. It is one of the most essential clauses because it plays an important role in administering the loss associated with commercial contracts which protects against the effects of the liability of the other person. The mere possibility of misfortune happening won’t make the indemnifier obligated. The misfortune to the repayment holder is fundamental, in any case, the indemnifier can’t be held obligated. Furthermore, the misfortune must emerge because of the conduct of the indemnifier or some other individual related. Carefully this doesn’t cover the demonstrations of God; in any case, different protection exchanges will be rendered unsound. Under Indian law, the meaning of contract of indemnity is limited to cases wherein the misfortune is brought about by human organization. Misfortunes from different causes are canvassed in different parts of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It should have all the valid essentials of a contract like legality, free consent and consideration. Consideration could be any amount or promise in exchange of anything. The person who promises to give the compensation to loss is the indemnifier and the person to whom it is made is called the indemnity holder. CONCEPT OF INDEMNITY: The word indemnity originated from the Latin word ‘indemnis’ which means unharmed or undamaged. The common meaning of indemnity is “protection against the losses”. It is one of the compensation schemes to make good the loss of one party due to the negligence of the other party. “Contract of indemnity is a contract by which one party promises to save the other from the loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person.” For example: A contracts to indemnify B against the consequences of any proceedings which C may take against B in respect of a certain sum of 200 rupees. This is a contract of indemnity. The contract of indemnity had a huge history, it was derived in the case where the plaintiff on the demand of the defendant sold the livestock to some other person. Later on, it was realized that the defendant was not the holder of the livestock and the plaintiff had to pay the damages so the plaintiff then after claim indemnity from the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff acted according to the defendant and so held the defendant liable to indemnity. Accordingly, it was held that the promise can be expressed or implied. Expressed contracts of Indemnity are the one which are agreed in oral or written form, whereas implied contracts are the one that come into existence by statute. ESSENTIALS: ● There must be a contract between the parties. ● There must be two parties. ● There must be a contract to save the other party from the loss. ● The loss must be due to the human actions only. RIGHT OF INDEMNITY HOLDER: Section 125 of the Indian contract act, 1872 provides us with an insight into the scope and the rights of the indemnity holder: “All the damages which he may be compelled to pay” The indemnity holder can recover all the damages which he had undergone during the proceedings but only those costs which adhered to the promises. In general sense, it is just the matter of proof within the scope of indemnity. “All costs which he may be compelled to pay” Cost incurred during the defending of the suit shall be reimbursed by the indemnity holder. But that reimbursement should not be against the order of the court, he should act as a prudent man obeying the court orders. “All sums which he may have paid” Sum paid if there should be an occurrence of compromise of the suit can likewise be recuperated from the indemnifier without damaging the sets of indemnifier. RIGHT OF INDEMNIFIER: As per the contract act the rights of the indemnifier have not been mentioned anywhere but in the case of Jaswat Singh vs Section of State, it has been upheld that the rights will be similar to that of the creditor to the principal debtor whether or not he is aware. Where an individual consents to reimburse, he will, upon such repayment, be qualified to prevail to all the available resources by which the individual initially repaid may have secured himself against misfortune or set up his pay for the misfortune. The guideline of subrogation i.e., replacement is established in fair standards. Once the indemnifier pays for the misfortune or harm caused, he will step into the shoes of the reimburse. In this manner, he will have all the rights with which the first indemnifier ensured himself against misfortune or harm. The guideline of subrogation is pertinent because of both the ICA, 1872 itself and standards of value. CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY WHEN ENFORCEABLE: In England, under custom-based law, it was fundamental for a reimbursement holder to initially pay for the misfortunes and afterward guarantee repayment. With time, Court of Equity relaxed the law and in 1911 with the “re: richardson, ex parte the governors of st thomas hospital case”, reimbursement before installment by the repayment holder was made the standard. Further in 1914, on account of Re: law guarantee and accidental case, it was expressed that ‘to repay doesn’t mean just to repay as for the cash paid however to spare from misfortune as for obligation for which reimbursement has been given’. A Contract of repayment would fill little need if the reimbursement holder was made at risk in the main case. In India, there is no particular arrangement which states when an agreement of reimbursement is enforceable. There have been conflicting legal choices all through. In Osmal Jamal and Sons Ltd versus Gopal Purushotam, was among the primary Indian situations where the option to be repaid before paying was perceived. However, presently, an agreement of sorts has been framed for the assessment of Equity Courts. In K Bhattacharjee v. Nomo Kumar, Shiam Lal v. Abdul Salal,and Gajanand Moreshwar Parelkar vs Moreshwar Madan Mantri ,cases, it has been concluded that the repaid may urge the indemnifier to put him in a situation to meet an obligation that might be provided reason to feel ambiguous about him without holding up until the promisee (reimburse) has really released it. Repayment necessitates that the gathering to be reimburse will never be called upon to pay. Subsequently, the risk of the indemnifier initiates the second the misfortune in type of obligation to the repaid gets supreme. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY AND CONTRACT OF INSURANCE: Both the contracts are contingent i.e. depends upon the happening and non-happening of an event, both are special contracts and have promise to be made. Both contracts consist of consideration. Contract of indemnity has a wider scope since it includes all contract of insurance except life insurance whereas contract of insurance has a narrow scope since all contract of indemnity are not contract of insurance Contract of indemnity does not follow the principle of Uberrimae Fides i.e. utmost good faith whereas contract of insurance follows this principle. No premium to be paid in contract of indemnity to nullify the loss whereas in contract of insurance it has to be paid. CONCLUSION: In the entire article we have seen that indemnity refers to making good the loss i.e. compensating the loss bearer. It is always in favor of the indemnity holder. It is just a legal dispensation from the penalties incurred by any course of action; indemnification is just a promise, usually a contract provision. It helps in risk management to cover the unforeseen losses. A straightforward indemnity clause provision isn’t the response to risk issues. The law inclines dis favorably towards those individuals who attempt to stay away from risk or look for exclusion from obligation of their activities. The basic thinking is that a careless gathering ought not have the option to totally move all cases and harms made against it to another, non-careless gathering.For example a ticket to an amusement park. Most consideration recently has been given to the improvement of repayment contracts in the IT business. There are a few conditions wherein the presence of a reimbursement would have a noteworthy effect while in others; an agreement of repayment will have practically zero tasks to carry out. Another new idea called ‘Repayment Lottery’ can be found in the law of agreement that infers that in common instances of reimbursement results can never be anticipated. Brazilian legal scholar Leonardo Castro is credited for instituting the term. However, the range of indemnity covered by section 124 is much narrower than the English common law concern.  Gautam Kumar Swain, Law relating to Indemnity in India, I PLEADERS INTELLIGENT LEGAL SOLUTIONS ( May 6, 2020, 12:49 AM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/laws-indemnity/
 Indian Contract Act, 1872
 Indian Contract Act, 1872
Sudhir Singh, Essay on Contract of Indemnity, PRESERVE ARTICLES, (May 6, 2020, 12:59 AM), https://www.preservearticles.com/short-essays/short-essay-on-contract-of-indemnity/19238
 Sakshi Agarwal, Contract of Indeminity in India & UK, Law Times Journal, (May 6, 2020, 1:11 AM), https://lawtimesjournal.in/contract-of-indeminity/
 Nishit Desai Associates, Indemnity v. Damages Debate, MONDAQ , (May 6, 2020, 1:17 AM), https://www.mondaq.com/india/contracts-and-commercial-law/482908/revisiting-the-indemnity-vs-damages-debate
Bhawani Prasad v. Gopal Singh, ILR (1888) 10 All 531; Venkatarangayya Appa Rao v. Varaprasada Rao Naidu, ILR (1920) 43 Mad 898.
 Kali Charan v. Durga Kunwar, ILR (1913) 35 All 168.
 14 BOM 299.
  ILR 56 CAL 262
 1899 26 CAL 241
 1931 ALL 754
 A.I.R. 1942 Bom, 302, at 304
 Sakshi Agarwal, Contract of Indeminity in India & UK, Law Times Journal, (May 6, 2020, 1:19 AM), https://lawtimesjournal.in/contract-of-indeminity/
 Wayne Courtney , INDEMNITIES AND THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872, 27 NLSIR, 66-88 (2015) Disclaimer: Views and opinions as expressed in the Research Articles are solely of the author and any member of the Editorial team or the Founder, Co-Founder or other members of the website shall not be liable for the same.