Home Maxims & Terms War Risks (Ships) Insurance Scheme 1965 meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

War Risks (Ships) Insurance Scheme 1965

War Risks (Ships) Insurance Scheme 1965 legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

1986 MLD 1392 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Ss.6 & 13War Risks (Ships) Insurance Scheme, 1965, para. 3Insurance claimWar risk cover

Liability of Shipping Company would accrue only if goods were proved to have been shipped on vessel and loss accrued during voyage

Burden, held, would be on plaintiff to prove that goods were actually shipped

Plaintiff producing documents purporting to be bills of lading but same not bearing signatures of either Shipping Company, or agent thereof

Original bills of lading neither produced by plaintiff nor any other document produced to show that goods were ever shipped

Plaintiffs only witness admitting that he was not present at time of shipment of goods

Where factum of shipment of cargo remained unproved, and plaintiff also failed to prove nature, quantity and value of goods, liability of insurance company, held, would not accrue to insurance claim of war risk cover

Suit by plaintiff claiming war risk cover of insurance claim would stand dismissed for want of proof of claim.

1983 PLD 550 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 13 & 6(1)-Insurance-Vessel-Cover against war risk-Relevant correspondence brought on record showing that request was made by Shipping Company to Insurance Company for insurance of three vessels including vessel in suit for certain sum in respect of each and Bank guarantee enclosed therewith for all three vessels-Insurance Company in their correspondence neither denying cover of vessel in suit against war risk nor denying receipt of premium from Shipping Company in respect of insurance

Cover of Ship in suit, held, established against war risk.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "War Risks (Ships) Insurance Scheme 1965", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3787

Precedents & Case Laws citing "War Risks (Ships) Insurance Scheme 1965"

PLD 1983
Suit No. 77 of 1966, decided on 7th February, 1983.

P L D 1983 Karachi 550

PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION Plaintiff Versus PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND 2 OTHERS-Defendants

Court:
MLD 1986
Suit No.446 of 1973, decided on 9th March, 1986.

1986 M L D 1392

Messrs ABDUL GHAFFAR KASAM — Plaintiff Versus Messrs ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd. and 3 others- -defendants

Court: Karachi
CLC 1993
H.C.A. No.22 of 1983, decided on 30th October, 1991.

1993 C L C 1284

KARACHI‑‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN NATIONAL. SHIPPING CORPORATION and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
PLD 1978
Writ Petition No. 700 of 1977, decided on 26th April, 1978.

P L D 1978 Lahore 844

GARDEE INVESTMENT LTD., LAHORE-Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF

Court: Para. 6 read with War Risks Insurance Rules, 1971, r. 7-Vires of Mules-Rule 7 ,providing a formula for easy ascertainment and determination of rent value and there being no other provision in War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971 laying down any formula for ascertainment of insurable value, Central Government, held, could make rules in such regard-Rules in such respect being necessary for carrying out purposes of Ordinance objection regarding r. 7 being in excess of rule-making authority overruled.-Vires of rule
PLD 1976
Writ Petitions Nos. 1289, 329, 330, 1295, 1399 394, 850, 851, 325, 1101, 553, 1580, 655, 1123, 1247 and 1259 of 1974 ; decided on 19th February 1976.

P L D 1976 Karachi 673

PAKISTAN CHROME MINES LTD., KARACHI‑Petitioner Versus THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, WAR RISK INSURANCE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Court: Valid and existing piece of legislation‑No male fides generally or specifically in legislating Ordinance proved‑Held, Ordinance cannot be struck down by Court‑Interpretation of statutes‑Mala fide intention cannot be imputed to Legislature.‑Interpretation of statutes.
PLD 1977
21st July 1977

P L D 1977 Karachi 954

PAKISTAN WARRANTED WAREHOUSE LTD., KARACHI‑ — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 4 others — ‑Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1977
Constitutional Petition No. 1289 of 1974, decided on 19th February 1976.

P L D 1977 Karachi 978

PAKISTAN CHROME MINES LTD.‑Petitioner Versus ENQUIRY OFFICER, WAR RISKS INSURANCE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Court:
PTD 2020
I.T.A No.204/KB of 2016, decided on 15th August, 2018.

2020 P T D (Trib

Messrs PAKISTAN RE-INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, LTU, KARACHI

Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal
PLD 1981
Constitutional Petition No. 1037 of 1975, decided on 22nd January, 1981.

P L D 1981 Karachi 357

PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE. ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS

Court: ‑--S. 115‑Estoppel‑Admission or consent by a party not in consonance/conformity with relevant provisions of law, held, does not constitute estoppel against such party.‑Estoppel.
PTD 1981
It does appear to us that this was a case decided on the principle of promissory estoppel. The representative of the Arun District Council clearly gave assurance to Crabb that they would give him access to the new road at point B to serve the southern portion of his land and the Arun District Council in fact constructed a gate at point B, and in the belief induced by this representation that he would have the right of access to the new road at point B, Crabb agreed to sell the northern portion of his land without reserving for himself as owner of the southern portion any right of way over the northern portion for the purpose of access to the new road. This was the reason why the Court raised an equity in favour of Crabb and held that the equity would be satisfied by giving Crabb "the right of access at point B free of charge without paying anything for it". . Arun District Council was held bound by its promise to provide Crabb access to the new road at point B and this promise was enforced against Arun District Council at the instance of Crabb. The ease was one which fell within the category of promissory estoppel and it may be regarded as supporting the view that promissory estoppel can be the basis of a cause of action. It is possible that the case also came within the rule of proprietary estoppel enunciated by Lord Kings-down in Ramsden v. Dyson 1866 L R 1 H L Cas. 129 (H L):

1981 P T D 277

MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS Co. LTD. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Court: Supreme Court of India