Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an alleged oral agreement to issue a policy of sea insurance was enforceable in the absence of an expressed sea policy under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Analysis: Section 7 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 made a contract for sea insurance invalid unless expressed in a sea policy. The statutory requirement was mandatory and prohibitory, not a mere procedural safeguard or a provision that could be waived by omission to plead it. An agreement for sea insurance concluded only by word of mouth, without the issuance of a policy, could not be enforced by the Court, regardless of the pleadings below. The evidence also did not establish a concluded contract on the facts, as the alleged declaration and acceptance were inconsistent with ordinary underwriting practice and with the withdrawal of the quotation before any effective acceptance.
Conclusion: The alleged agreement was unenforceable, and the claim failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal could not succeed because the asserted sea-insurance arrangement was barred by statute and was not proved as a binding contract.
Ratio Decidendi: A contract for sea insurance is unenforceable unless it is expressed in a sea policy, and the statutory bar cannot be avoided by waiver, omission to plead, or oral proof alone.