Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)
Tirupati Cold Storage Private Limited vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 21 November, 2025 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S Ishar Das Madan Lal on 20 February, 2007

In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishar Das Madan Lal reported in (2007) 4 SCC 105, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wherever such exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview thereof. In a case of ambiguity, it is trite, the contract of insurance shall be construed in favour of the insured. For defeating the claim of the plaintiff, it was, thus, obligatory on the part of the defendant to establish that the conditions prescribed therein were satisfied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 25 - S B Sinha - Full Document

B.V. Nagaraju vs M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. ... on 20 May, 1996

20. Allowing the claim, this Court held thus : (B.V. Nagaraju case, SCC pp. 650-51, para &) '7. It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. Here, it is nobody's case that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. In fact, it was not disputed that the oncoming vehicle had collided head- on against the insured vehicle, which resulted in the damage. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. In the instant case, however, we find no such contributory factor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 297 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Union Of India vs N Murugesan on 7 October, 2021

13. An exclusion clause has to be understood on the touchstone of the doctrine of reading down in the light of the underlining object and intendment of the contract. It can never be understood to mean 28 to be in conflict with the main purpose for which the contract is entered. A party, who relies upon it, shall not be the one who committed an act of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, particularly when the contract along with the exclusion clause is introduced by it. Such a clause has to be understood on the prism of the main contract. The main contract once signed would eclipse the offending exclusion clause when it would otherwise be impossible to execute it. A clause or a term is a limb, which has got no existence outside, as such, it exists and vanishes along with the contract, having no independent life of its own. It has got no ability to destroy its own creator i.e. the main contract. When it is destructive to the main contract, right at its inception, it has to be severed, being a conscious exclusion, though brought either inadvertently or consciously by the party who introduced it. The doctrine of waiver, acquiescence, approbate and reprobate, and estoppel would certainly come into operation as considered by this Court in Union of India v. N. Murugesan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 102 - M M Sundresh - Full Document
1   2 Next