Further companyrespondence between the parties ensued and ultimately the appellant intimated to respondent number 1 by its letter dated 5th July, 1963 Referring to the previous companyrespondence relating to the above mentioned claim, we regret to inform you that we repudiate the claim under the above mentioned policies.
In view of a special clause in the policies excluding the jurisdiction of companyrts other than the companyrt at Delhi, the Muzaffarnagar companyrt allowed that objection and directed the return of the application by its order dated 1 5 1964.
84/1975.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment order dated the 7th October 1971 of the Delhi High Court in F.A.O. No.
Respondent number 1 refiled it on 19 5 1964 in the Delhi Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. This appeal by special leave was filed by The Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. The general insurance business of the Company was nationalised during the pendency of this appeal and therefore, in place of the original appellant was substituted United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd by order 28 2 1975 passed in CMP No.
Respondent number 1 in the first instance filed the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act.
The Bank insured the mortgage properties from time to time with the appellant companypany under three insurance policies, the terms governing the same being identical.
The appellant appeared and, inter alia, took an objection to the jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the application.
A mortgage deed was executed by him in favour of the respondent bank for that purpose.
For the sake of facility hereinafter in this judgment by the appellant would be meant the original appellant companypany.
1940 hereinafter called the Act on 20 1 1964 in the Court at Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent number 1 thereupon wrote a letter dated 1 1 1963 to the Insurance Company informing it that since.
2,730,004.40 due to damage caused to the stock of goods.
He said further that if the companypany was number agreeable to the appointment of Shri Bannerjee as the sole arbitrator, he may be treated as a numberinee of respondent number I and the companypany may point its own.
The respondent number 1 in the appeal is Maharaj Singh, sole proprietor of Khatauli Manure Mills, Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar.
Appellant resisted it.
Eventually M s. K. Bhandari Sons, Surveyors of the Insurance Company wrote a letter dated 26th April, 1963 to respondent number 1 informing him that they had assessed the total damage caused to him due to fire at Rs.
Thereupon representatives of the Bank and the Insurance Company and some surveyors visited the factory premises of 1 3 1963 and after.
Hence this appeal by the Insurance Company.
Respondent number 1 carries a business of manufacturing Bone Manure etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Respondent number 1 claimed that due to fire he had suffered a loss of Rs.
He entered into an arrangement with respondent number 2 for taking advance of money on the security of the factory premises, machineries and the stock of goods.
4,620/ .
A fire is said to have broken out in the factory premises of respondent number 1 in the night between 28 2 1963 and 1 3 1963 The Bank informed the Insurance Company about the fire.
The appellant companypany in its letter dated the 5th and the 29th July, 1963 repudiated the claim altogether.
Respondent number 2 is Punjab National Bank.
S. Nariman and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.
it had repudiated his claim under clause 13 of the Insurance Policy a difference had arisen between the parties and hence respondent number 1 proposed to appoint one Shri K. N. Bannerjee as the sole arbitrator, to decide the disputes as per the arbitration agreement incorporated in the policies.
K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamaruddin and P. N. Puri for Respondent No.
in his mills at Khatauli.
24,800/ on account of damage to the fixed assets and Rs.
Respondent number 1 seems to have written a letter dated 22nd July, 1963 of the appellant, to which it sent a reply dated 29th July, 1963 categorically stating We are advised to repudiate your claim inter alia under Clause 13 of the Fire Policies.
We regret that survey report and any other reports cannot be furnished to you.
2228 of 1972.
In reply to the said letter dated the 1st October, 1963 the companypany wrote a letter dated 10th October.
N. Andley, Miss Uma Mehta, Mrs. S. Bagga, S. K. Bagga, Ramesh Chand and R. K. Mehta for Respondent No.
155 D of 1965.
They, however, added at the end of their letter This is without prejudice to the terms and companyditions of the policy and without any companymitment of liability on the part of the Insurance Company.
