<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1970 (3) TMI 161 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168428</link>
    <description>Nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act gives only a right to receive policy proceeds from the insurer; it does not confer ownership, beneficial interest, or any proprietary share in the policy moneys. Because the nominee has no title in the amount payable, the nominee cannot validly assign or surrender the policy, and assignment is governed separately under Section 38. The document also notes that there was no pleading or proof of actual surrender, and the Married Women&#039;s Property Act was inapplicable. On that basis, an assignment made by the nominee in favour of a bank was invalid and the insurer was not liable on that claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:10:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377205" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (3) TMI 161 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168428</link>
      <description>Nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act gives only a right to receive policy proceeds from the insurer; it does not confer ownership, beneficial interest, or any proprietary share in the policy moneys. Because the nominee has no title in the amount payable, the nominee cannot validly assign or surrender the policy, and assignment is governed separately under Section 38. The document also notes that there was no pleading or proof of actual surrender, and the Married Women&#039;s Property Act was inapplicable. On that basis, an assignment made by the nominee in favour of a bank was invalid and the insurer was not liable on that claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>