Showing 61–80 of 87 terms for letter C
(page 4 of 5)
C
Legal term
Contingent Agreement
Contractus Sub Conditione (Latin)
Definition
A contract to do or not to do something, if some event collateral to such contract does or does not happen — the performance of the obligation depends on the occurrence of a future uncertain event.
Explanation
A contingent contract under Section 31 ICA is one whose performance is conditional on the happening or non-happening of a future uncertain event. The event must be collateral (external, independent) — not the main subject of the contract itself. Contingent contracts are valid and enforceable when the contingency occurs. Rules: (a) If the contingent event becomes impossible, the contract is void (Section 32); (b) if dependent on non-happening of an event, enforceable when the event becomes impossible (Section 33); (c) contracts dependent on willful act — enforceable when the act is done or not done (Section 34); (d) agreement contingent on happening within fixed time — void if the event does not happen within that time (Section 35).
Statutory Provision
Section 31, Indian Contract Act, 1872: 'A contingent contract is a contract to do or not to do something, if some event, collateral to such contract, does or does not happen.' Section 32: 'Contingent contracts to do or not to do anything if an uncertain future event happens cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event has happened. If the event becomes impossible, such contracts become void.'
The right of a co-surety who has paid more than their proportionate share of a guaranteed debt to recover the excess from the other co-sureties — ensuring the burden of the guarantee is borne equally among all co-sureties.
Explanation
Contribution is a remedy between co-sureties — not between the surety and the principal debtor (which is indemnification) or between the surety and the creditor (which is subrogation). When multiple sureties guarantee the same debt, each bears a proportionate share. If one pays more than their share (because the creditor chooses to proceed against only one), that co-surety has a right to recover the excess from the others under Sections 146-147 ICA. Contribution is an equitable principle that prevents one co-surety from being unjustly enriched (by not having to pay) at the expense of another (who paid too much).
Statutory Provision
Section 146, Indian Contract Act, 1872: 'Co-sureties who are bound in different sums are liable to pay equally as far as the limits of their respective obligations allow.' Section 147: 'Co-sureties who have given their consent to a contract of guarantee and are sued are liable to contribute equally, but a co-surety is not liable to contribute beyond the maximum of his obligation.'
A member of a Hindu Undivided Family who has a birth right in the ancestral property and the right to demand partition—now including daughters by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Explanation
A coparcener under Mitakshara Hindu law is a person who has a share in the coparcenary property by virtue of birth in the family. The coparcenary consists of the common male ancestor and his male lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees. The 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act extended coparcenary status to daughters of a coparcener—they are coparceners by birth, with equal rights to demand partition and equal liability for debts. Coparcenary property is ancestral property held jointly by members who acquired it by birth, not by will or gift.
Statutory Provision
Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended 2005): 'On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son.'
The essential elements that must be proved to establish that a crime has been committed — the 'body' of the crime, consisting of (a) proof that the specific act occurred; and (b) proof that it was caused by criminal agency.
Explanation
Corpus delicti (literally 'body of the crime') requires the prosecution to prove: (a) that the criminal act actually occurred — not merely that the accused acted in a certain way; and (b) that the act was caused by criminal agency — not accident, suicide, or natural causes. In murder cases, the corpus delicti includes: the fact of death, the cause of death (not natural), and the fact that someone caused the death (even before the specific accused is identified). Under Indian law, courts have consistently held that a confession alone (without corroboration) is insufficient to prove corpus delicti — there must be independent evidence that the crime was committed before a confession can be used to establish who committed it.
Statutory Provision
No statutory definition — corpus delicti is a common law concept. Most relevant statutory context: Section 24 BSA (previously Section 25 IEA) — 'A confession made to a police officer shall not be proved as against a person accused of any offence' — this rule exists partly because a confession alone cannot substitute for proof of corpus delicti; Section 106 BSA (Section 106 IEA) — burden of proof shifts to accused for facts within their special knowledge, but only after corpus delicti is established by the prosecution.
An agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means — the agreement itself constitutes the offence, regardless of whether the planned act is carried out.
Explanation
Criminal conspiracy under Section 61 BNS 2023 (formerly Section 120A IPC) makes the agreement itself a crime — a significant departure from the general principle that mere intention without action is not punishable. The elements: (a) two or more persons; (b) an agreement; (c) to do an illegal act OR to do a legal act by illegal means. If the illegal act agreed upon is not murder, kidnapping, or an offence punishable with imprisonment of two or more years, the conspiracy requires an overt act in pursuance. Unlike abetment (which requires a principal offence to be committed or substantially advanced), criminal conspiracy is complete at the moment of agreement — subject to the overt act requirement for lesser offences.
Statutory Provision
Section 61(1), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 120A IPC): 'When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, — (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.' Section 61(2): 'A person is a party to a criminal conspiracy who agrees with another to do or cause to be done any illegal act.'
Insolvency proceedings involving a debtor with assets or creditors in multiple countries — requiring coordination between different countries' insolvency regimes to maximise asset recovery and treat creditors equitably across jurisdictions.
Explanation
Cross-border insolvency arises when a company in insolvency has assets, operations, or creditors in multiple countries. The key challenge: each country applies its own insolvency law, potentially creating conflicting proceedings and unequal treatment of creditors. The international standard: UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997) — adopted by over 50 countries (US, UK, Singapore, Australia) but not yet by India. India's IBC Part IV (Sections 234-235) has limited provisions for cross-border insolvency — enabling bilateral agreements between India and other countries for cooperation and information sharing, but not adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law framework. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has proposed draft cross-border insolvency legislation for India.
Statutory Provision
Section 234, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for enforcing the provisions of this Code.' Section 235: 'Where a letter of request to a court in a country outside India, in relation to insolvency proceedings under this Code, is issued by such court, any court in India shall, subject to such conditions as may be specified, dispose of the request in accordance with the provisions of the Code and any law for the time being in force.' These provisions are limited — India does not yet have a comprehensive cross-border insolvency framework.
