𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
18.9K subscribers
852 photos
11 videos
1.72K files
3.1K links
πŸ“² Contact β†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

☺️ 360° Cases on topics.

Keywords: Civil Judge, MPCJ, UP PSCJ, Haryana ADA, DJS, CBI APP, RJS, JLO, CLAT PG, Supreme Court law clerk, AIBE, IBPS, UGC NET.
_____________
🧠 Daily Quiz β†’ @LegalQuizzes

β³πŸš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Cause Of Fire Is Immaterial If Insured Didn't Instigate It : Supreme Court Explains Principles On Fire Insurance https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/cause-of-fire-is-immaterial-if-insured-didnt-instigate-it-supreme-court-explains-principles-on-fire-insurance…
πŸ”₯πŸ§―πŸ§‘β€πŸš’ β€œIt is settled law that the contract of fire insurance is a contract to indemnify the Insured against loss by fire.”,

Whether in a particular case, the loss is caused by fire?


β€œa) There must be an actual fire; hence mere heating or fermentation will not be sufficient to render the insurers liable for loss occasioned thereby.

b) There must be something on fire which ought not to have been on fire.

c) There must be something in the nature of an accident, but a fire occasioned by the wilful act of a third person without the consent of the Insured, is to be regarded as accidental for the purpose of this rule.


NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
VS.
ORION CONMERX
PVT LTD
2025
β€œOnce it is established that the loss is due to fire and there is no allegation/finding of fraud or that the Insured is the instigator of the fire, the cause of fire is immaterial and it will have to be assumed and presumed that the fire is accidental and falls within the ambit and scope of fire policy.”

#Contract@CurrentLegalGK
#Insurance@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘1😍1
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
judgment-356192025-31-10-2025-628506.pdf
Though, the Magistrate is
conferred with the power to monitor the investigation as has been held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirmed in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, it does not extend to interfering with the power conferred on a police officer to summon a witness under Section 179 of BNSS. However, the provisions of Section 528 of the BNSS provides sufficient safeguards to the Advocates against whom a summons is issued under the BNSS.

continued....
πŸ’―2