Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAM DAYAL AND ORS.

Decided
20 April 1990
Judges listed
RANGANATH MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 570 · 1990 INSC 149
Also cited as
  • (1990) 2 SCC 680 (24 citing judgments)
  • (1990) SCC(CRI) 432 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 7 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

RANGANATH MISRA, J. These are appeals by special leave challenging the reversing common decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court holding the insurer liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.

p. 571, margin B

The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that the policy had been taken aner the accident and, therefore, it had no liability to meet the award of compensation against the owner. The Tribunal accepted this stand and rejected the claim against the insurer. In appeal, the High Court took the view relying upon certain decisions that the insurance policy obtained on the date of the accident became operative from the commencement of the date of insurance-Le. from the previous mid-night and since the accident took place on the date of the policy the insurer became liable.

p. 571, margin B

Apart from the judgment under appeal, we find that this view is supported by two judgments of the Madras High Court and an earlier decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Two Division Benches of the Madras High Court have taken the view after discussing the law at length that the policy taken during any part of the day becomes operative from the commencement of that day. Besides these judgments a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jaddoo Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Malti Devi & Anr., AIR 1983 All. 87 supports this view on principle.

p. 571, margin D

There is evidence in this case that the vehicle was insured earlier upto 31.8.1984 and the same was available to be renewed but instead of obtaining renewal, a fresh insurance was taken from 28th of September, 1984, which is the date of the accident. We are inclined to agree with the view indicated in these decisions that when a policy is taken on a particular date its effectiveness is from the commencement of the date and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding that the insurer was liable in terms of the Act to meet the liab1Jity of the ow:ier under the award.

p. 571, margin F

As pointed out in Stroud's judicial Dictionary 'Date' means day, so that where a cover not providing for temporary insurance of a motor car expires 15 days after date of commencement, it runs for the full 15 days after the day on which it was to commence."

pp. 571–572, margin G

Similarly it has been stated in Stroud that "a bill of exchange, or note, is of the date expressed on its face, not the time when it is actually issued."

p. 572, margin A

. To the same effect is the decision in Re F & B Warren, [1938] Ch. 725 where it has been held that a judicial act will be referred to the first moment of the day on which it is done. A payment made by a bankrupt in the morning of a day is, therefore, not made, within section 45 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914 before the date of a receiving order made later in the same day.

p. 572, margin B

The ratio of these also supports the view we have taken.

p. 572, margin C

The appeals fails and are dismissed. There would, however, be no order for costs. N.P.V. Appeals dismissed.

p. 572, margin C