https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300914 Where commission agents undertook to insure goods but failed to do so, the majority held them liable for the principal's direct loss under agency and contract principles, even though the contemplated fire policy excluded explosion damage and the Bombay Explosion (Compensation) Ordinance, 1944 later governed compensation. The Ordinance was treated as fixing the measure and machinery of recovery, not as breaking causation or extinguishing liability for breach of the duty to insure. The counterclaim for the balance of the loss was therefore not barred by section 18(2), because it was founded on the agents' default rather than on the explosion itself. The dissent would have confined recovery to nominal damages and treated the counterclaim as barred. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Mar 2022 13:15:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300914 Where commission agents undertook to insure goods but failed to do so, the majority held them liable for the principal's direct loss under agency and contract principles, even though the contemplated fire policy excluded explosion damage and the Bombay Explosion (Compensation) Ordinance, 1944 later governed compensation. The Ordinance was treated as fixing the measure and machinery of recovery, not as breaking causation or extinguishing liability for breach of the duty to insure. The counterclaim for the balance of the loss was therefore not barred by section 18(2), because it was founded on the agents' default rather than on the explosion itself. The dissent would have confined recovery to nominal damages and treated the counterclaim as barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Dec 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300914