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

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. JIKUBHAI NATHUJI DABHI AND ORS.

Decided
20 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 929 · 1996 INSC 1346
Also cited as
  • (1997) 1 SCC 66 (34 citing judgments)
  • (1996) 8 SCALE 695 (3 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 8 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.

This appeal by special leave is cofined to the question as to whether the accident had occurred during the operation of the insurance policy in controversy. The admitted position is that the renewal of the insurance was effected as under :

pp. 929–930, margin H

"Address: Jal Apartment, ....... Pd. Vile Parle (N) Bombay. 5. It is hereby understood and agreed that the renewal premium of Rs. 1307 only under this Policy having been paid on 25.10.1983 and not within the renewal date viz.14.10.1983 the Insurance by this Policy is suspended from 14.10.1983 (4." p.m.) to 24.10.1983. Further, it is declared and agreed that the cover under this Policy is reinstated and renewed for a further period of twelve months from 25.10.1983 to 24.10.1984 at a premium of Rs.

p. 930, margin A

1307."

p. 930, margin C

The Tribunal also had recorded, as a fact, that on October 25, 1983 at 4.00 p.m. the contract of renewal had come into force and it would be operative upto October 24, 1984. The Tribunal also recorded, as a fact, that the accident had occured on October 25, ! 983 at 11.14 a.m. that is, before the renewal <if the contract. Under these circumstances, it would clear that the accident had occurred when the renewal had not taken effect.

p. 930, margin C

This Court in New India Assurance Co v. Ram Dayal, [1990] 2 SCR 570, had held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the mid-night of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act. But in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, namely, it would be operative from 4.00 p.m. on October 25, 1983 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable, and claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant-Company.

p. 930, margin E

The appeal is accordingly allowed only to the above extent. In respect of any claim against the owner, the respondent is at liberty to have it recovered. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 930, margin F