{"id":12633,"date":"2000-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000"},"modified":"2015-03-22T06:15:56","modified_gmt":"2015-03-22T00:45:56","slug":"ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: K Balakrishnan<\/div>\n
Bench: M.J.Rao, G.G.Balakrishnan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 1112 2000\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/S HANIL ERA TEXTILES LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.\tLTD.  & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM.J.Rao, G.G.Balakrishnan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      K.G.  BALAKRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  appellant is a manufacturer of cotton, polyester,
\nwoollen and viscose yarns and their blends.  It is a hundred
\nper  cent export-oriented unit and has got two manufacturing
\nmills,\tone  engaged in the manufacture of spinning  acrylic
\nyarn  (Mill  A) and the other for spinning cotton  yarn\t and
\nvarious blended yarn (Mill B).\tAppellant started production
\nof  these  yarns in 1994 and in the same year had  taken  12
\nfire  insurance\t policies  for a total assured\tsum  of\t Rs.
\n125.72\tcrores.\t  These policies were initially\t valid\tfrom
\nJanuary\t 1994  to October 1995 and were later  renewed\tfrom
\ntime to time.  These policies covered raw materials, stocks,
\nplant  and  machinery,\taccessories, spares,  building\tetc.
\nWhile  issuing the policies, the officials of the respondent
\nInsurance  Company had visited the premises of the appellant
\nfactory\t and inspected machinery, building, stock etc.\t and
\nthe  premia payable by the appellant were fixed accordingly.
\nMill  ‘B’  has a Blow-room since cotton processing  requires
\nthe   said  facility.\tThe   officials\t of  the  respondent
\nInsurance  Company inspected and verified the Blow- room and
\nthe respondent informed the appellant on 22.11.1994 that the
\nproperty  situated in the Blow-room in Mill ‘B’ attracted  a
\nhigher\tpremium of Rs.\t8.9 per thousand instead of Rs.\t 2.5
\nper  thousand charged earlier and accordingly an  additional
\nsum  of\t Rs.   93,316\/-\t was  required to  be  paid  by\t the
\nappellant.  The appellant paid the additional premium of Rs.
\n93,316\/- as demanded by the respondent Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
      A major fire accident occurred in Mill ‘B’ on 24.12.94
\ndestroying  the\t stocks,  machinery  and  building  therein.
\nAdmittedly,  the  Blow-room was not affected by\t fire.\t The
\nappellant  immediately reported the matter to the respondent
\nInsurance  Company.   The  surveyors  visited  the  Mill  on
\n6.1.1995  to assess the extent of damage caused by the fire.
\nHaving\ttaken  several months to complete their report,\t the
\nSurveyors   ultimately\t assessed  a   net  claim   of\t Rs.
\n3,68,60,231\/-,\t though,   according  to   the\t appellant’s
\nestimate, the loss was around Rs.  7 crores.\n<\/p>\n
      On  24.1.95, the respondent Insurance Company informed
\nthe  appellant that a sum of Rs.  49,89,463\/- should be paid
\nas additional premium as the Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC)
\napproved  type\tAutomatic Diversion System or Co-2  Flooding
\nSystem\t in  the  Chute\t  Feeding  arrangement\tbetween\t the
\nBlow-room  and the Carding Section was not installed in\t the
\nMill  and  in the absence of the fire protection  system  as
\nprescribed  under the TAC regulation, premium at the rate of
\nRs.   8.9  per\tthousand would be applicable to\t the  entire
\nfactory\t w.e.f.\t  1.1.95,  excluding  the  raw\tmaterial  in
\ngodown.\t  Subsequently, on 13.7.95, the respondent Insurance
\nCompany\t again\taddressed a letter to the appellant  stating
\nthat  the earlier letter for payment of Rs.  49.89,463\/- was
\ncancelled  and a sum of Rs.  1,13,13,344\/- was to be paid by
\nthe  appellant as the entire factory building, including the
\nBlow-room   was\t a  single   communicating  structure\tand,
\ntherefore,  the\t premium at a higher rate of Rs.  11.73\t per
\nthousand  was applicable to the entire area.  This was based
\non the alleged inspection by the engineers of the respondent
\nInsurance  Company  along with the engineers of\t the  Tariff
\nAdvisory Committee (TAC) and the Loss Prevention Association
\nof  India  Ltd.\t  (LPA)\t after the date of  the\t fire.\t The
\nappellant  was not agreeable to pay the additional amount so
\nrequired  to be paid to the respondent Insurance Company and
\ncontended  that the Blow-room was segregated in all respects
\nand  the  TAC  approved fire- fighting\tequipment  had\tbeen
\ninstalled  by  the  appellant.\tOn 19.9.96,  the  respondent
\nInsurance  Company informed the appellant that the competent
\nauthority  had approved the settlement of the fire claim for
\nRs.  2,94,10,834\/- and an amount of Rs.\t 73,67,636\/- was due
\ntowards customs liability.  The respondent Insurance Company
\nsought to claim a deduction of Rs.  1,20,77,614\/- towards an
\nalleged\t short-charged\tpremium.   Thus,  on  27.11.96,\t the
\nappellant  received a cheque for Rs.  1,71,33,220\/- out of a
\ntotal claim of Rs.  3,68,60,231\/-.  The respondent Insurance
\nCompany\t required the appellant to give an undertaking for a
\ndeduction  of the short- charged premium.  Aggrieved by\t the
\nsame,  the  appellant  preferred  a  complaint\tbefore\t the
\nNational  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and  prayed
\nthat  the respondent Insurance Company be directed to pay an
\namount\tof Rs.1,23,97,036\/- with 24% interest from  24.12.94
\ntill  the  date of payment.  The appellant also\t prayed\t for
\npayment\t of  interest @ 24% for the delayed payment  of\t Rs.
\n1,73,33,220\/- and also sought other incidental reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
      The  respondents\t1 to 4 (collectively referred to  as
\n‘the respondent Insurance Company” in the Judgment) filed a
\njoint  reply before the Commission, wherein the\t allegations
\nmade in the complaints were denied and it was submitted that
\nthe  withholding  of the sum of Rs.  1.20,77,614\/-  was\t for
\nadequate  reasons  and\tthere was no deficiency\t of  service
\nalleged\t by  the complainant.  It was also denied  that\t the
\ndemand\tfor the additional premium was an afterthought.\t The
\nrespondent  Insurance  Company further stated that the\tsaid
\npremium\t had  to  be  charged in accordance  with  the\tFire
\nTariffs\t prescribed  by\t the Tariff  Advisory  Committee,  a
\nstatutory  body set up under the Insurance Act, 1938, as  it
\nwas obligatory for all insurance companies to charge premium
\nin  accordance therewith.  For charging the Tariff  premium,
\nit  was\t immaterial whether the fire originated in the\tmain
\narea  and not in the Blow-room or whether the Blow-room\t was
\ntotally\t unaffected  by\t the fire.  The\t Fire  Tariffs\talso
\nprovide\t for the manner in which the various sections of the
\nmultiple  occupancy risk will be segregated from each other.
\nIt  is\tonly  when  the segregation is done  in\t the  manner
\nprovided  for by the rules that varying rates of premium can
\nbe  charged for each section of a building independently  on
\nits  own merits.  The premises of the appellant factory were
\ninspected   in\tMarch  1994  and   the\tBlow-room  was\t not
\noperational.   In  view of the Tariff provisions and on\t the
\nfact of non-segregation of the Blow-room from the main area,
\nan  amount  of\tRs.  1,13,13,344\/- had to  be  short-charged
\ntowards\t premium.   A copy of the report of  the  Government
\nAudit Party was produced by the respondent Insurance Company
\nbefore\tthe  National Commission.  The respondent  Insurance
\nCompany contended that the Blow-room was not segregated from
\nthe  main  room and, therefore, the appellant was liable  to
\npay the additional premium.\n<\/p>\n
      After  hearing both the sides, the Commission came  to
\nthe conclusion that the enhancement of the premium was based
\non  the\t application of the TAC Regulations and it  was\t the
\nduty  of the respondent Insurance Company to have  inspected
\nand  monitored\tthe  Complainant Company even prior  to\t the
\nincidence  of  fire,  but  that\t cannot\t be  said  to  be  a
\ndeficiency  of service qua the Complainant.  The  respondent
\nInsurance  Company had every right to claim any shortage  of
\npremium\t at  a\tlater  date  even after\t the  issue  of\t the
\npolicies,  if it was found due and recoverable\tsubsequently
\nunder  the  TAC Regulations.  The Commission held  that\t the
\nappellant was not entitled to any other relief sought for in
\nthe  complaint.\t  The  complaint was  accordingly  dismissed
\nwithout costs.\tAggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n
      We  heard\t counsel  on either side  elaborately.\t The
\nlearned\t senior counsel for the appellant contended that the
\nrespondent  Insurance  Company\tcharged\t a  higher  rate  of
\npremium\t for the Blow-room, whereas the rest of the area was
\npermitted  to  be  insured at a lower premium  and  this  is
\nindicative  of the fact that the Blow-room was separated and
\nsegregated  from  the rest of the area.\t The learned  senior
\ncounsel\t for the appellant further urged that six fire-proof
\ndoors  had been installed to protect the Blow-room area and,
\ntherefore,  the\t contention  of\t  the  respondent  that\t the
\nBlow-room   and\t  the  rest  of\t  the  area  was  a   single
\ncommunicating structure is not correct.\t The learned counsel
\nfor  the  respondent, on the other hand, contended that\t the
\nhigher\trate  of  premium  was charged\tin  respect  of\t the
\nBlow-room  on  the assumption that the appellant would\tmake
\nthe  Blow-room\ta  segregated\tportion.   The\trespondent’s
\ncounsel\t contended  that  the  Blow-room  started  operation
\nsomewhere  in April, 1994, and even though the appellant was
\nadvised\t to furnish the separate values of the\tbifurcation,
\nthe same was not furnished.  Meanwhile, some of the policies
\nbecame\tdue  for renewal from 1.11.1994 and the renewal\t was
\ndone  on  a provisional basis.\tThe information relating  to
\nbifurcation  was given by the appellant only on 14.11.94 and
\nas  the Insurance Company had not admitted but only  assumed
\nthat the Blow- room was segregated from the rest of the area
\nof  the\t mill, the additional premium of Rs.   93,316\/-\t was
\ndemanded  by the respondent for insurance from 1.11.94.\t The
\ncontention of the respondent’s counsel is that the Blow-room
\nwas  segregated\t from  the rest of the area  with  fireproof
\ndoors only after the incident of fire.\n<\/p>\n
      It was urged by the respondent’s counsel that based on
\nthe  recommendations  of the Tariff Advisory Committee,\t the
\nappellant  was\tasked to pay the additional premium  of\t Rs.
\n1,13,13,344\/-  as  according  to  the  respondent  Insurance
\nCompany, the appellant should have observed the TAC approved
\ntype  of Automatic Diversion System or Co-2 Flooding  system
\nin  the Chute Feeding arrangement between the Blow-room\t and
\nthe  Carding Section, but this was not done by the appellant
\nprior  to  the occurrence of the fire and the Blow-room\t was
\nnot  segregated\t from the rest of the area.  Therefore,\t the
\nadditional premium of Rs.1,13,13,344\/- was liable to be paid
\nby the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      In  this\tcase, it is not disputed that the  appellant
\nhad valid insurance policies during the period when the fire
\noccurred  in the Mill.\tAccording to the appellant, the loss
\nsuffered  by the appellant was around Rs.7 crores.  However,
\nthe    independent   surveyor\t assessed    the   loss\t  at
\nRs.3,68,60,231\/.   Even\t according  to the  respondent,\t the
\namount\tpayable under the insurance policies was settled  at
\nRs.  2,94,10,834\/- vide its letter dated 19th September 1996
\nand  by\t the same communication the appellant  was  informed
\nthat  a\t sum of Rs.  1,20,77,614\/- would be  deducted.\t The
\ndispute\t relates only to the question whether the  appellant
\nwas  in\t fact  liable to pay the additional premium  of\t Rs.
\n1,13,13,344\/-.\t This claim was based on the basis that\t the
\nappellant  had not segregated the Blow-room from the rest of
\nthe area and therefore, the entire area attracted premium at
\nthe  rate  of Rs.11.73 per thousand.  It may be\t noted\tthat
\ninitially the entire area was insured @ Rs.2.5 per thousand,
\nand   subsequently  the\t officers   and\t engineers  of\t the
\nrespondent  Insurance  Company visited the premises  of\t the
\nappellant  factory and vide communication dated\t 22.11.1994,
\nthe  Blow- room was separately insured at the higher rate of
\nRs.   8.9  per\tthousand.   In\tthe  letter  dated  22.11.94
\naddressed  to the appellant, it was stated that:  “We are in
\nreceipt\t of your letter dated 14th November, 1994 furnishing
\nseparate values in respect of the properties situated in the
\nBlow-room  area\t of your factory referred to  herein  above.
\nThe additional premium in respect of the said property comes
\nto  Rs.\t  93,316\/-  as\tper the\t premium  computation  shown
\nhereunder.”  Therefore,\t it is clear that the Blow-room\t was
\ntaken  as a separate portion segregated from the rest of the
\nfactory premises.\n<\/p>\n
      The  fire occurred on 24.12.1994 and the surveyors M\/s
\nMehta  &  Padamsey  Pvt.   Ltd.\t  visited  the\tpremises  on
\n6.1.1995.   In the report of the Surveyors, dated 16.5.1996,
\nit  was\t stated\t that the Blow-room was connected  with\t the
\nprocess\t area via the opening meant for the fireproof doors.
\nIt  was\t also stated that the entire main factory  building,
\nincluding   the\t area  of  the\t Blow-room  was\t  a   single
\ncommunicating  structure.   But,  on the other hand,  it  is
\npertinent  to  note  that the representatives  of  the\tLoss
\nPrevention  Association\t of  India Ltd.\t  also\tvisited\t the
\nfactory\t premises and in paragraph 7.1 of their report ,  it
\nis stated by them as under:\n<\/p>\n
      “As mentioned earlier, various sections of the factory
\nwere  not segregated from each other (except Blow Room which
\nwas segregated by means of double fire-proof doors).  So the
\nfire  spread very quickly from the stock of raw material  to
\nthe  finished  product stack which was located at the  other
\nend of the section named ‘Mixing Conditioning Department.”\n<\/p>\n
      [emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
      When  the\t appellant raised objections  regarding\t the
\nopinion\t expressed  by the surveyors, M\/s Mehta\t &  Padamsey
\nPvt.  Ltd., a revised report was given on February 11, 1997,
\nwherein\t it  was  stated that in the absence  of  verifiable
\nrecords,  the  only date when it is possible to\t state\twith
\ncertainty  that the Blow-room was segregated, is January  6,
\n1995,  but  this  opinion  was not based  on  any  available
\nrecords or data.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is of primary importance to note that the fire had
\nnot  spread  to\t the Blow-room area.  That raises  a  strong
\npresumption  that  the Blow-room was segregated even  before
\nthe  accident.\tThe appellant had also produced documents to
\nshow  that they had installed the fireproof doors to protect
\nthe  Blow-room.\t  The  next  important\tfact  was  that\t the
\nrespondent  demanded  a\t higher\t rate  of  premium  for\t the
\nBlow-room  in  November\t 1994  and   this  is  prima   facie
\nindicative of the fact that the Blow-room was separated from
\nthe  rest of area.  The observations of the  representatives
\nof  the\t Loss  Prevention  Association of  India  Ltd.,\t who
\nvisited\t  the  factory\ton   6.1.1995,\tcannot\tbe   lightly
\ndisregarded.   Therefore,  it is clear that the attempts  of
\nthe  respondent Insurance Company to show that the appellant
\nhad  not  taken effective steps to segregate  the  Blow-room
\ncannot succeed.\n<\/p>\n
      The   respondent\t Insurance   Company   claimed\t the
\nadditional premium of Rs.  1,13,13,344\/- on the basis of the
\nrecommendations\t of  the Tariff Advisory Committee,  and  it
\nseems  that  the  Comptroller and Auditor General  had\talso
\nrecommended  that this additional premium should be paid  by
\nthe  appellant.\t  According  to the opinion  of\t the  Tariff
\nAdvisory Committee, the Blow-room was not segregated and the
\nentire\t main  factory,\t including   the  building  and\t the
\nBlow-room,  was\t a  single   communicating  structure\tand,
\ntherefore,  premium  at\t the higher rate of Rs.\t  11.73\t per
\nthousand  should  have been charged for the entire area\t and
\nthis  higher rate of Rs.  11.73 was reduced to Rs.  8.9\t per
\nthousand  by the Tariff Advisory Committee with effect\tfrom
\n1.4.1994.   It was made clear that the revised lower rate of
\nRs.8.9\tper  thousand  would apply to the  new\tbusiness  or
\nrenewals  falling  due on or after 1.4.94.  It is  also\t the
\ncase   of   the\t respondent   Insurance\t Company  that\t the
\nTAC-approved  type  Automatic  Diversion   System  or\tCo-2
\nFlooding System in the Chute Feeding arrangement between the
\nBlow-room  and the Carding Section was not installed.  It is
\npertinent to note that the appellant was never informed that
\nthese\tarrangements  have  to\tbe  made.   The\t  respondent
\nInsurance  Company has also not produced any  correspondence
\nto  show  that when the insurance policies in question\twere
\nissued,\t the  appellant was informed about these matters  or
\nthat   the   appellant\t refused  to   comply\twith   these
\nrequirements.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned Author E.R.  Hardy Evamy, in his book relating
\nto  Fire  &  Motor Insurance, 2nd Edition, on  page  7,\t has
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
      “The  contract of fire insurance, like other contracts
\nof  insurance, differs from any ordinary contract in that it
\nrequires,  throughout  its existence, the utmost good  faith
\n(uberrima  fides)  to  be observed on the part of  both\t the
\ninsured and the insurers.\n<\/p>\n
      In  addition to the ordinary obligation, which  exists
\nin  every  contract  that all representations  made  by\t the
\nparties\t during the negotiations leading up to the  contract
\nshall  be  honestly  made,  it is an  implied  term  of\t the
\ncontract  of  fire  insurance that the\tperson\tseeking\t the
\ninsurance  shall  communicate  to the insurers\tall  matters
\nwithin\this  knowledge\twhich are in fact  material  to\t the
\nquestion of the insurance, and not merely all those which he
\nbelieves to be material.”\n<\/p>\n
      There  is no case that the insured had suppressed\t any
\nmaterial,  whereas the respondent Insurance company had\t not
\napprised the insured about the Automatic Diversion System or
\nthe  Co-2 Flooding System in the Chute Feeding\tArrangement.
\nThe  special  precautions  to be made on the  basis  of\t the
\nreport of the TAC are generally matters within the knowledge
\nof  the\t insurers  and\tthe contract of\t insurance  being  a
\ncontract  of  utmost good faith, ordinarily,  these  matters
\nshould have been brought to the notice of the insured before
\nthe  policy was issued in his favour.  It is also  important
\nto  note that the respondent Insurance Company did charge  a
\nhigher\trate  of  premium  for the  “Blow-room”.   There  is
\nnothing\t to indicate that it was done on a provisional basis
\nor that the insured suppressed any material facts.  In fact,
\nthe  engineers\tof the respondent Insurance Company  visited
\nthe  appellant’s  factory  prior  to  the  issuance  of\t the
\npolicies  and  charged\ta  higher rate of  premium  for\t the
\nBlow-room.  When premium is thus demanded and collected at a
\nhigher rate, it is an indication regarding the nature of the
\ncontract that subsists between the parties, namely, that the
\ninsurer\t was  aware  of\t the   higher  risks  involved.\t  In
\nHalsbury’s  Laws  of  England, Vol.  25, at  Para  458,\t the
\nfollowing observations are made:\n<\/p>\n
      “The  rate of premium in fact charged may give rise to
\nimportant  inferences.\tThe materiality of a representation,
\nwhich  has been made, may be inferred from a reduced rate of
\npremium\t being charged.\t Similarly, ignorance on the part of
\nthe insurers of some matter supposed to be well known may be
\ninferred  if  they charge no more than the ordinary rate  of
\npremium,  while an exceptionally high rate of premium may be
\nindicative  of\ttheir  acceptance of the risk  as  hazardous
\nwithout\t requiring disclosure of the precise facts making it
\nso.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  clear  that the respondent  Insurance  Company
\nrecovered the premium at a higher rate for the Blow-room and
\nthis  can only be on the basis of the acceptance of the fact
\nthat  the  Blow-room  was a separate unit.   Therefore,\t the
\ncontention of the respondent that the Blow-room and the rest
\nof  the area was a single communicating structure cannot  be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
      On  reappraisal  of  the evidence,  including  various
\ncorrespondences\t between the insured and the insurer, it  is
\nclear  that the appellant had segregated the Blow-room\tfrom
\nthe  rest of the area even prior to the occurrence of  fire.
\nThe  fact  that\t the  respondent charged a  higher  rate  of
\npremium\t after having inspected the premises, and the report
\nof  the Loss Prevention Association of India Ltd.  that\t the
\nBlow-room was segregated by means of double fire-proof doors
\nand  the  fire had not spread to this area,  strengthen\t the
\nplea  of the appellant as regards the Blow-room.  It is also
\nto  be noted that the respondent Insurance Company  received
\nthe  separate values of bifurcation as early as on  14.11.94
\nwithout any demur and went ahead with the issuance of policy
\ncharging  premium  at a higher rate for the Blow-room.\t The
\nbelated\t steps taken by the respondent to charge premium  at
\nstill  higher  rate  for the entire area was  not  justified
\nunder  law.  It may be noted that out of Rs.  1,13,13,344\/-,
\nan  amount  of Rs.  43,99,003\/- was sought to be  levied  as
\npremium\t due for the period 1993-94.  This amount was sought
\nto be recovered from the appellant apparently much after the
\nlapse  of the validity period of those policies.  Therefore,
\nwe  hold  that\ta  sum\tof Rs.\t 1,20,77,614\/-\tdue  to\t the
\nappellant was illegally withheld by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  result, the respondent Insurance\t Company  is
\ndirected  to  pay  an amount of Rs.   1,20,77,614\/-  to\t the
\nappellant  with 12% interest per annum from 14.3.97, that is
\nthe  date of the complaint filed by the appellant before the
\nNational  Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, up to the
\ndate  of  payment.  The appellant would also be entitled  to
\nproportionate  costs from the respondent Insurance  Company.
\nThe appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000 Author: K Balakrishnan Bench: M.J.Rao, G.G.Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1112 2000 PETITIONER: M\/S HANIL ERA TEXTILES LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/11\/2000 BENCH: M.J.Rao, G.G.Balakrishnan JUDGMENT: K.G. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-22T00:45:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-22T00:45:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3265,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-22T00:45:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-22T00:45:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-22T00:45:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000"},"wordCount":3265,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000","name":"M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-22T00:45:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hanil-era-textiles-limited-vs-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-ors-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Hanil Era Textiles Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 November, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12633","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}