An appeal preferred by the respondent number 1 against the said judgment, however, has been allowed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The suit was decreed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court inter alia on the premise that one Hemchandra Babu who was the agent of the insurer and who had filled in the form, kept blanks therein for which the Bank companyld number be held responsible.
It was later on renewed for the period 12.04.1980 and 11.04.1981.
1, a civil suit marked as Suit No.
It was insured on 12.04.1979 to companyer the period from 12.04.1979 to 12.04.1980.
Appellant is, thus, before us.
D It was also referred to in the plaint.
The vessel was engaged for fishing purposes.
A claim was made in that behalf, which having been repudiated by the respondent No.
333 of 1983 was filed by the appellant and the Bank before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Appellant obtained a loan from Canara Bank Bank .
The vessel sunk on 21.07.1980.
The insurance policy was marked as Ext.
You said the proposal form was typed at your office.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.
At the time of sanction of loan, the Bank obtained an insurance policy from the respondent number 1 in respect of the said vessel.
4974 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Respondent number 1 in its written statement inter alia companytended that the vessel was number seaworthy.
Appellant was the owner of a Sea Vessel known as Sea Lark.
