Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Section 291 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
General Assurance Society Ltd vs Chandumull Jain And Anr on 7 February, 1966
35. The Supreme Court in General Assurance Society Limited (AIR 1966 SC 164) (supra) has observed as follows (at pp. 16481649 of AIR):
Bawa Singh vs Jagdish Chand And Ors. on 26 May, 1960
Learned counsel relied on Bawa Singh v. Jagdish Chand, , Ram Murty Gupta v. Suresh Chaiidra Agrawal, Gurnam Singh v Surjit Singh, , Irudayam Animal v. Salayath Mary, and Bharat Bhushan v. Yed Prakash, , in support of this contention.
Ram Murty Gupta vs Suresh Chandra Agrawal on 21 May, 1973
Learned counsel relied on Bawa Singh v. Jagdish Chand, , Ram Murty Gupta v. Suresh Chaiidra Agrawal, Gurnam Singh v Surjit Singh, , Irudayam Animal v. Salayath Mary, and Bharat Bhushan v. Yed Prakash, , in support of this contention.
Gurnam Singh And Ors. vs Surjit Singh And Ors. on 5 August, 1974
Learned counsel relied on Bawa Singh v. Jagdish Chand, , Ram Murty Gupta v. Suresh Chaiidra Agrawal, Gurnam Singh v Surjit Singh, , Irudayam Animal v. Salayath Mary, and Bharat Bhushan v. Yed Prakash, , in support of this contention.
Irudayam Ammal And Ors. vs Salayath Mary on 1 August, 1972
Learned counsel relied on Bawa Singh v. Jagdish Chand, , Ram Murty Gupta v. Suresh Chaiidra Agrawal, Gurnam Singh v Surjit Singh, , Irudayam Animal v. Salayath Mary, and Bharat Bhushan v. Yed Prakash, , in support of this contention.
Bharat Bhushan vs Ved Prakash on 10 February, 1978
Learned counsel relied on Bawa Singh v. Jagdish Chand, , Ram Murty Gupta v. Suresh Chaiidra Agrawal, Gurnam Singh v Surjit Singh, , Irudayam Animal v. Salayath Mary, and Bharat Bhushan v. Yed Prakash, , in support of this contention.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Raja Vasireddy Komallavalli Kamba & ... on 27 March, 1984
39. In my view, on reading the observations of the Supreme Court in the two authorities cited hereinabove whether the case relates to general insurance or life insurance makes no difference. As observed by the Supreme Court itself in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) the general rule is that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer. Whether it is done by giving a cover note or by issuing a letter depends on the facts of each case. In order to hold that there was a binding contract of insurance, there must be an offer put-forward by one party to the contract and acceptance of it by another. As observed in Mac Gillivry and Parkington on Insurance Law, Eighth Edition, Chapter 2 page 87 para212, the material terms of a contract of insurance are: the definition of the risk to be covered, the duration of the insurance cover, the amount and mode of payment of the premium and the amount of insurance payable in the event of a loss. As to all these there must be a consensus ad idem, that is to say, there must be either an express agreement or the circumstances must be such as to admit of a reasonable inference.