Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 303 Oriental Insurance Company LTD V Sanjesh 11 Mar 2022 412798

    Uploaded by

    Amritha Umashankar
    35 views1 page
    The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an insurance company challenging a High Court order. [1] The insurance company argued that the insured's claim was not filed within the one-month period specified in the policy, or the additional one-month extension period. [2] However, the Court held that as per Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, any agreement restricting a party's right to enforce their rights through usual legal proceedings is void. [3] Therefore, the insurance policy condition requiring claims to be filed within one month, extendable by another month, was contrary to law and void.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    303 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v Sanjesh 11 Mar 2022 412798

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an insurance company challenging a High Court order. [1] The insurance company argued that the insured's claim was not filed within the one-month period specified in the policy, or the additional one-month extension period. [2] However, the Court held that as per Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, any agreement restricting a party's right to enforce their rights through usual legal proceedings is void. [3] Therefore, the insurance policy condition requiring claims to be filed within one month, extendable by another month, was contrary to law and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    35 views1 page

    303 Oriental Insurance Company LTD V Sanjesh 11 Mar 2022 412798

    Uploaded by

    Amritha Umashankar
    The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from an insurance company challenging a High Court order. [1] The insurance company argued that the insured's claim was not filed within the one-month period specified in the policy, or the additional one-month extension period. [2] However, the Court held that as per Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, any agreement restricting a party's right to enforce their rights through usual legal proceedings is void. [3] Therefore, the insurance policy condition requiring claims to be filed within one month, extendable by another month, was contrary to law and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


    HEMANT GUPTA; V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
    Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3978/2022; 11-03-2022
    THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS SANJESH & ANR.

    Indian Contract Act, 1872; Section 28 - Insurance - Condition of lodging


    Insurance claim within a period of one month, extendable by another one month
    is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and thus void.
    (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2021 in WC No. 19071/2020 passed
    by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
    For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. Mrs. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mr. Yashvardhan S. Soam, Adv.
    ORDER
    The sole arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim
    was not filed within a period of one month or extending condonable period of one
    month.
    We do not find any merit in the said arguments in view of Section 28 of the
    Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) which reads as under:-
    “28. Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void.— [Every agreement,—
    (a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under
    or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals,
    or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or
    (b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto,
    from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period
    so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to the extent.]”
    In view of the aforesaid Section, the condition of lodging claim within a period of
    one month, extendable by another one month is contrary to Section 28 of the Act and
    thus void.
    In view of the said fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order
    passed by the High Court.
    The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
    Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

    © All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw Media Pvt. Ltd.


    *Disclaimer: Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court website. Access it here

    You might also like