<?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>1957 (11) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289141</link>
    <description>Timely intimation of loss satisfied the statutory claim condition where the insurer was informed in substance within one year through letters and telegrams, and the disturbed conditions did not defeat the claim. The court treated the evidence of despatch and surrounding circumstances as sufficient to show a competent application. It also found that eyewitness testimony established the insured goods were looted on 8 and 9 August 1947 while both policies were in force, and that deprivation of the goods in communal disturbances fell within the insurance cover. Liability was therefore fixed on the insurer, with the amount apportioned as agreed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:54:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (11) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289141</link>
      <description>Timely intimation of loss satisfied the statutory claim condition where the insurer was informed in substance within one year through letters and telegrams, and the disturbed conditions did not defeat the claim. The court treated the evidence of despatch and surrounding circumstances as sufficient to show a competent application. It also found that eyewitness testimony established the insured goods were looted on 8 and 9 August 1947 while both policies were in force, and that deprivation of the goods in communal disturbances fell within the insurance cover. Liability was therefore fixed on the insurer, with the amount apportioned as agreed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>