Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 182 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Polymat India P. Ltd. & Anr vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 1 December, 2004

Haris Marine Products vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation ... on 25 April, 2022

of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the insurance company must also be read strictly. The contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonise the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon. (Vide Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan [(1999) 6 SCC 451], Polymat India (P) Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2005) 9 SCC 174], Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd. [(2010) 11 SCC 296] and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran [(2012) 5 SCC 306].)”14 (emphasis supplied) Thus, according to the counsel for ECGC, the date of shipment being a day prior to the effective date of implementation of the Policy, ECGC was not bound to honour to claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S Jsw Energy Ltd vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 15 March, 2019

23. A party cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the terms of contract, for the reason that contract is a transaction between the two parties and has been entered into with open eyes and understanding the nature of contract. Thus, contract being a creature of an agreement between two or more parties, has to be interpreted giving literal meanings unless, there is some ambiguity therein. The contract is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. It is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be varied. The contract has to be interpreted without any outside aid. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the Page 31 of 54 A. No. 355 of 2017 nature of the contract, as it may affect the interest of either of the parties adversely. [Vide United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai ChandanLal [(2004) 8 SCC 644 : AIR 2004 SC 4794] and Polymat India (P) Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2005) 9 SCC 174 : AIR 2005 SC 286] ] DLF Universal Limited v. Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, (2010) 14 SCC 1 Interpretation of contract
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shreenath Industries vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & 3 on 8 September, 2016

However, the Apex Court has also observed in Para - 19 in case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. & Anr. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) that it is the duty of the Court to interpret the documents of the contract as was understood between the parties. It is not a question of giving an artificial far-fetched meaning with regard to the policy in question since the conduct of both the parties do suggest that is was understood that the policy would cover various heads though the policy might not have referred therein.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Gaurav Ink Private Limited vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 27 January, 2026

H. Insurance Policy is a Contract Between the Parties - The defendant's reliance on strict interpretation per United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (Supra), Polymat India (P) Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd. v. Garg Son (Supra), is distinguishable on the facts of the present case as these do not override estoppel or prohibition on new grounds, and where conduct shows waiver as held by this court.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zuari Maroc Phosphate Ltd vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2017

(ix) Article 3.4(b) of the SPA, which envisaged the exact mechanism of calculating the current and non-current assets and liabilities of PPL and preparing the CDS, had to be strictly construed. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Polymat India Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 286; General Assurance Society Ltd.v Chandmull Jain 1966 (3) SCR 500; Food Corporation of India v. Chandu Construction & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 697; Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 588 and Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath AIR 1968 SC 522.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next