Marine insurance conditions precedent and suit limitation clauses must be strictly complied with to preserve recovery under the policy.

Marine policy stipulations printed on the contract were treated as conditions precedent, so the assured had to prove strict compliance with the no-smoking or no-cooking prohibition and prompt police reporting unless a waiver was established. The contemporaneous fire report and the delayed police intimation did not satisfactorily show compliance, and waiver was not proved beyond a limited request for examination of the Manji. The policy's six-month suit limitation was also enforced, with "month" construed according to the contract's governing meaning in the absence of a contrary indication. On both grounds, recovery under the policy was defeated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assured had complied with the warranties and conditions in the marine policy, including the prohibition against smoking or cooking on board and the requirement of prompt police reporting; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by the contractual clause limiting proceedings to six months after the loss.

Issue (i): Whether the assured had complied with the warranties and conditions in the marine policy, including the prohibition against smoking or cooking on board and the requirement of prompt police reporting.

Analysis: The stipulations on the face of the marine policy were treated as conditions precedent, and compliance with them had to be shown by the assured unless waived. The contemporaneous police report stated that fire in an earthen pot had caught the jute, which supported the inference of cooking or smoking on board, and no satisfactory proof of compliance with the prohibition was made. The report to the nearest police station was also not made within 24 hours and did not state that the cargo was insured. The alleged waiver was not established beyond the limited step of asking for the Manji to be produced for examination.

Conclusion: The assured failed to prove compliance with the material conditions precedent, and this issue was decided against the assured.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by the contractual clause limiting proceedings to six months after the loss.

Analysis: The policy expressly required suit within six months after the loss. On the authorities applied, the expression "month" in such a contract was held to mean a lunar month in the absence of a statutory or contractual indication to the contrary. Even on the alternative calendar-month calculation, the suit was filed after the expiry of the contractual period. The contractual bar was therefore effective.

Conclusion: The suit was time-barred under the policy, and this issue was decided against the assured.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff could not recover under the policy because the contractual conditions were not shown to have been performed and the action was brought too late.

Ratio Decidendi: In a marine insurance policy, stipulations on the face of the contract that operate as conditions precedent must be strictly complied with, and where the policy limits the time for suit, the contractual meaning of "month" governs unless displaced by a clear contrary indication; failure on either footing defeats recovery.

---