<?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>2005 (7) TMI 701 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198645</link>
    <description>An earlier admission in contemporaneous insurance documents shifted the burden to the maker to rebut it with reliable evidence, but the later contrary certificate was not satisfactorily proved. On that record, the factual controversy over whether the storm-related exclusion clause applied could not be finally determined, so the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on evidence. No final view was expressed on the substantive insurance liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 701 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198645</link>
      <description>An earlier admission in contemporaneous insurance documents shifted the burden to the maker to rebut it with reliable evidence, but the later contrary certificate was not satisfactorily proved. On that record, the factual controversy over whether the storm-related exclusion clause applied could not be finally determined, so the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on evidence. No final view was expressed on the substantive insurance liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>