Assignment under Insurance Policies

By J Mandakini, NUALS

Editor’s Note: This paper attempts to explore the concept of assignment under Indian law especially Contract Act, Insurance Act and Transfer of Property Act. It seeks to appreciate why the assignment is made use of for securities of a facility sanctioned by ICICI Bank. Also, it explains how ICICI Bank faces certain problems in executing the same. 

INTRODUCTION

For any facility sanctioned by a lender, collateral is always deposited to secure the same. Such mere deposition will not suffice, the borrower has to explicitly permit the lender to recover from the borrower, such securities in case of his default.

This is done by the concept of assignment, dealt with adequately in Indian law. Assignment of obligations is always a tricky matter and needs to be dealt with carefully. The Bank should not fall short of any legally permitted lengths to ensure the same. This is why ambiguity in its security documents have to be rectified. 

This paper attempts to explore the concept of assignment in contract law. It seeks to appreciate why the assignment is made use of for securities of a facility sanctioned by ICICI Bank. The next section will deal with how ICICI Bank faces certain problems in executing the same. The following sections will talk about possible risks involved, as well as defenses and solutions to the same.

WHAT IS ASSIGNMENT?

Assignment refers to the transfer of certain or all (depending on the agreement) rights to another party. The party which transfers its rights is called an assignor, and the party to whom such rights are transferred is called an assignee. Assignment only takes place after the original contract has been made. As a general rule, assignment of rights and benefits under a contract may be done freely, but the assignment of liabilities and obligations may not be done without the consent of the original contracting party.

The liability on a contract cannot be transferred so as to discharge the person or estate of the original contractor unless the creditor agrees to accept the liability of another person instead of the first.[i]

Illustration

P agrees to sell his car to Q for Rs. 100. P assigns the right to receive the Rs. 100 to S. This may be done without the consent of Q. This is because Q is receiving his car, and it does not particularly matter to him, to whom the Rs. 100 is being handed as long as he is being absolved of his liability under the contract. However, notice may still be required to be given. Without such notice, Q would pay P, in spite of the fact that such right has been assigned to S. S would be a sufferer in such case.

In this case, that condition is being fulfilled since P has assigned his right to S. However, P may not assign S to be the seller. P cannot just transfer his duties under the contract to another. This is because Q has no guarantee as to the condition of S’s car. P entered into the contract with Q on the basis of the merits of P’s car, or any other personal qualifications of P. Such assignment may be done with the consent of all three parties – P, Q, S, and by doing this, P is absolved of his liabilities under the contract.

 1.1. Effect of Assignment

Immediately on the execution of an assignment of an insurance policy, the assignor forgoes all his rights, title and interest in the policy to the assignee. The premium or loan interest notices etc. in such cases will be sent to the assignee.[ii] However, the existence of obligations must not be assumed, when it comes to the assignment. It must be accompanied by evidence of the same. The party asserting such a personal obligation must prove the existence of an express assumption by clear and unequivocal proof.[iii]

 Assignment of a contract to a third party destroys the privity of contract between the initial contracting parties. New privity is created between the assignee and the original contracting party. In the illustration mentioned above, the original contracting parties were P and Q. After the assignment, the new contracting parties are Q and S.

 1.2. Revocation of Assignment

Assignment, once validly executed, can neither be revoked nor canceled at the option of the assignor. To do so, the insurance policy will have to be reassigned to the original assignor (the insured).

 1.3. Exceptions to Assignment

There are some instances where the contract cannot be assigned to another.

  • Express provisions in the contract as to its non-assignability – Some contracts may include a specific clause prohibiting assignment. If that is so, then such a contract cannot be assigned. Assignability is the rule and the contrary is an exception.[iv]
  • Contracts which are of a personal nature – Rights under a contract are assignable unless the contract is personal in its nature or the rights are incapable of assignment.[v]

  • Pensions, PFs, military benefits etc.

    Illustration

    Under a contract with a painter named P to paint for D, P cannot assign it to anyone else, since D engaged P for the latter’s specific qualities as a painter. A unique relationship had been created between P and D.

 1.4. Enforcing a Contract of Assignment

From the day on which notice is given to the insurer, the assignee becomes the beneficiary of the policy even though the assignment is not registered immediately. It does not wait until the giving of notice of the transfer to the insurer.[vi] However, no claims may lie against the insurer until and unless notice of such assignment is delivered to the insurer.

If notice of assignment is not provided to the obligor, he is discharged if he pays to the assignor. Assignee would have to recover from the assignor. However, if the obligor pays the assignor in spite of the notice provided to him, he would still be liable to the assignee.

The following two illustrations make the point amply clear:

Illustrations

1. Seller A assigns its right to payment from buyer X to bank B. Neither A nor B gives notice to X. When payment is due, X pays A. This payment is fully valid and X is discharged. It will be up to B to recover it from A

2. Seller A assigns to bank B its right to payment from buyer X. B immediately gives notice of the assignment to X. When payment is due, X still pays A. X is not discharged and B is entitled to oblige X to pay a second time.

An assignee doesn’t stand in better shoes than those of his assignor. Thus, if there is any breach of contract by the obligor to the assignee, the latter can recover from the former only the same amount as restricted by counter claims, set offs or liens of the assignor to the obligor.

The acknowledgment of notice of assignment is conclusive proof of, and evidence enough to entertain a suit against an assignor and the insurer respectively who haven’t honoured the contract of assignment.

1.5. Assignment under various laws in India

There is no separate law in India which deals with the concept of assignment. Instead, several laws have codified it under different laws. Some of them have been discussed as follows:

1.5.1. Under the Indian Contract Act

There is no express provision for the assignment of contracts under the Indian Contract Act. Section 37 of the Act provides for the duty of parties of a contract to honour such contract (unless the need for the same has been done away with). This is how the Act attempts to introduce the concept of assignment into Indian commercial law. It lays down a general responsibility on the “representatives” of any parties to a contract that may have expired before the completion of the contract. (Illustrations to Section 37 in the Act).

An exception to this may be found from the contract, e.g. contracts of a personal nature. Representatives of a deceased party to a contract cannot claim privity to that contract while refusing to honour such contract. Under this Section, “representatives” would also include within its ambit, transferees and assignees.[vii]

Section 41 of the Indian Contract Act applies to cases where a contract is performed by a third party and not the original parties to the contract. It applies to cases of assignment.[viii] A promisee accepting performance of the promise from a third person cannot afterwards enforce it against the promisor.[ix] He cannot attain double satisfaction of its claim, i.e., from the promisor as well as the third party which performed the contract. An essential condition for the invocation of this Section is that there must be actual performance of the contract and not of a substituted promise.

 1.5.2. Under the Insurance Act

The creation of assignment of life insurance policies is provided for, under Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938.

  • Endorsement has to be made on the policy or on a separate document, signed by assignor (or agent authorized by him), attested by at least one witness specifying the fact of the assignment. The assignment is complete and effectual with the execution of such a document. However, it will not be operative against the insurer (no assignee has the right to sue for any policy amount from the insurer) unless the above-mentioned endorsement or separate policy has been delivered to the insurer.

  • When the insurer receives the endorsement or notice, the fact of assignment shall be recorded with all details (date of receipt of notice – also used to prioritise simultaneous claims, the name of assignee etc). Upon request, and for a fee of an amount not exceeding Re. 1, the insurer shall grant a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such assignment, thereby conclusively proving the fact of his receipt of the notice or endorsement. Now, the insurer shall recognize only the assignee as the legally valid party entitled to the insurance policy.

 1.5.3. Under the Transfer of Property Act

Indian law as to assignment of life policies before the Insurance Act, 1938 was governed by Sections 130, 131, 132 and 135 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 under Chapter VIII of the Act – Of Transfers of Actionable Claims. Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act states that nothing contained in that Section is to affect Section 38 of the Insurance Act.

 I) Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act

An actionable claim may be transferred only by fulfilling the following steps:

  • Execution of an instrument

  • In writing

  • Signed by a transferor (or his authorized agent)

The transfer will be complete and effectual as soon as such an instrument is executed. No particular form or language has been prescribed for the transfer. It does not depend on giving notice to the debtor.

The proviso in the section protects a debtor (or other person), who, without knowledge of the transfer pays his creditor instead of the assignee. As long as such payment was without knowledge of the transfer, such payment will be a valid discharge against the transferee. When the transfer of any actionable claim is validly complete, all rights and remedies of transferor would vest now in the transferee. Existence of an instrument in writing is a sine qua non of a valid transfer of an actionable claim.[x]

 II) Section 131 of the Transfer Of Property Act

This Section requires the notice of transfer of actionable claim, as sent to the debtor, to be signed by the transferor (or by his authorized agent), and if he refuses to sign it, a signature by the transferee (or by his authorized agent). Such notice must state both the name and address of the transferee. This Section is intended to protect the transferee, to receive from the debtor. The transfer does not bind a debtor unless the transferor (or transferee, if transferor refuses) sends him an express notice, in accordance with the provisions of this Section.

III) Section 132 of the Transfer Of Property Act

This Section addresses the issue as to who should undertake the obligations under the transfer, i.e., who will discharge the liabilities of the transferor when the transfer has been made complete – would it be the transferor himself or the transferee, to whom the rest of the surviving contract, so to speak, has been transferred.

This Section stipulates, that the transferee himself would fulfill such obligations. However, where an actionable claim is transferred with the stipulation in the contract that transferor himself should discharge the liability, then such a provision in the contract will supersede Ss 130 and 132 of this Act. Where the insured hypothecates his life insurance policies and stipulates that he himself would pay the premiums, the transferee is not bound to pay the premiums.[xi]

FACILITIES SECURED BY INSURANCE POLICIES – HOW ASSIGNMENT COMES INTO THE PICTURE

Many banks require the borrower to take out or deposit an insurance policy as security when they request a personal loan or a business loan from that institution. The policy is used as a way of securing the loan, ensuring that the bank will have the facility repaid in the event of either the borrower’s death or his deviations from the terms of the facility agreement.

Along with the deposit of the insurance policy, the policyholder will also have to assign the benefits of the policy to the financial institution from which he proposes to avail a facility. The mere deposit, without writing, or passing of any document of title to such a claim, does not create any equitable charge.[xii]

ETHICS OF ASSIGNING LIFE INSURANCE POLICY TO LENDERS

The purpose of taking out a life insurance policy on oneself, is that in the event of an untimely death, near and dear ones of the deceased are not left high and dry, and that they would have something to fall back on during such traumatic times. Depositing and assigning the rights under such policy document to another, would mean that there is a high chance that benefits of life insurance would vest in such other, in the event of unfortunate death and the family members are prioritized only second. These are not desirable circumstances where the family would be forced to cope with the death of their loved one coupled with the financial crisis.

 Thus, there is a need to examine the ethics of:

  • The customer assigning his life insurance policy

  • The bank accepting such assignment

The customer should be cautious before assigning his rights under life insurance policies. By “cautious”, it is only meant that he and his dependents and/or legal heirs should be aware of the repercussions of the act of assigning his life insurance policy. It is conceded that no law prohibits the assignment of life insurance policies.

In fact, Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938, provides for such assignments. Judicial cases have held life insurance policies as property more than a social welfare measure.[xiii] Further, the bank has no personal relationship with any customer and thus has no moral obligation to not accept such assignments of life insurance.

However, the writer is of the opinion that, in dealing with the assignment of life insurance policies, utmost care and caution must be taken by the insured when assigning his life insurance policy to anyone else.

CURRENT STAND OF ICICI REGARDING FACILITIES SECURED BY INSURANCE POLICY, WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO ASSIGNMENT OF OBLIGATIONS

This Section seeks to address and highlight the manner in which ICICI Bank drafts its security documents with regard to the assignment of obligations. The texts placed in quotes in the subsequent paragraphs are verbatim extracts from the security document as mentioned.

Composite Document for Corporate and Realty Funding

 “8.   CHARGING CLAUSE

 The Mortgagor doth hereby:

iii) Assign and transfer unto the Mortgagee all the Bank Accounts and all rights, title, interest, benefits, claims and demands whatsoever of the Mortgagor in, to, under and in respect of the Bank Accounts and all monies including all cash flows and receivables and all proceeds arising from Projects and Other Projects_______________, insurance proceeds, which have been deposited / credited / lying in the Bank Accounts, all records, investments, assets, instruments and securities which represent all amounts in the Bank Accounts, both present and future (the “Account Assets”, which expression shall, as the context may permit or require, mean any or each of such Account Assets) to have and hold the same unto and to the use of the Mortgagee absolutely and subject to the powers and provisions herein contained and subject also to the proviso for redemption hereinafter mentioned;

(v) Assign and transfer unto the Mortgagee all right, title, interest, benefit, claims and demands whatsoever of the Mortgagors, in, to, under and/or in respect of the Project Documents (including insurance policies) including, without limitation, the right to compel performance thereunder, and to substitute, or to be substituted for, the Mortgagor thereunder, and to commence and conduct either in the name of the Mortgagor or in their own names or otherwise any proceedings against any persons in respect of any breach of, the Project Documents and, including without limitation, rights and benefits to all amounts owing to, or received by, the Mortgagor and all claims thereunder and all other claims of the Mortgagor under or in any proceedings against all or any such persons and together with the right to further assign any of the Project Documents, both present and future, to have and to hold all and singular the aforesaid assets, rights, properties, etc. unto and to the use of the Mortgagee absolutely and subject to the powers and provisions contained herein and subject also to the proviso for redemption hereinafter mentioned.”

 ICICI Bank’s Standard Terms and Conditions Governing Consumer Durable Loans

 INSURANCE

  1. In the event the Borrower is covered under an Insurance Policy as specified in the Application Form, the Borrower shall forthwith assign all monies payable by the Insurance Company to the Borrower and all rights, title, benefits and interest of the Borrower under the policy in favor of ICICI Bank till such time as the entire dues from the Borrower have been paid to the satisfaction of ICICI Bank. For the purpose of such assignment, the Borrower shall provide the Insurance Policy and such other documents as may be required by ICICI Bank from time to time.  The Borrower shall provide copies of authorizations from the Insurance Company acknowledging the assignment in favor of ICICI Bank.

    The Borrower further agrees that upon any monies becoming due under the policy, the same shall be paid by the Insurance Company to ICICI Bank without any reference / notice to the Borrower, but not exceeding the principal amount outstanding under the Insurance Policy. The Borrower specifically acknowledges that in all cases of claim, the Insurance Company will be solely liable for settlement of the claim, and he/she will not hold ICICI Bank responsible in any manner whether for compensation, recovery of compensation, processing of claims or for any reason whatsoever.

    The Borrower shall not effect any change in the nomination without the prior written consent of ICICI Bank. In the event of the Facility being terminated, for any reason whatsoever, all payments of premium made by ICICI Bank on behalf of the Borrower shall automatically and ipso facto cease to be available from such date of cessation of the Facility.   In such event, the Borrower shall be liable to pay all dues remaining outstanding to ICICI Bank.  ICICI Bank may at any time (at its sole discretion without giving any prior notice thereof) modify, suspend, withdraw or cancel these payments and there will be no binding obligation on ICICI Bank to continue.”

Reference has been made only to assignment of assets, rights, benefits, interests, properties etc. No specific reference has been made to the assignment of obligations of the assignor under such insurance contract.

THE ISSUE FACED BY ICICI BANK

Where ICICI Bank accepts insurance policy documents of customers as security for a loan, in the light of the fact that the documents are silent about the question of assignment of obligations, are they assigned to ICICI Bank? Where there is hypothecation of a life insurance policy, with a stipulation that the mortgagor (assignor) should pay the premiums, and that the mortgagee (assignee) is not bound to pay the same, Sections 130 and 132 do not apply to such cases.[xiv] With rectification of this issue, ICICI Bank can concretize its hold over the securities with no reservations about its legality.

RISKS INVOLVED

This section of the paper attempts to explore the many risks that ICICI Bank is exposed to, or other factors which worsen the situation, due to the omission of a clause detailing the assignment of obligations by ICICI Bank.

Practices of Other Companies

The practices of other companies could be a risk factor for ICICI Bank in the light of the fact that some of them expressly exclude assignment of obligations in their security documents.

There are some companies whose notice of assignment forms contain an exclusive clause dealing with the assignment of obligations. It states that while rights and benefits accruing out of the insurance policy are to be assigned to the bank, obligations which arise out of such policy documents will not be liable to be performed by the bank. Thus, they explicitly provide for the only assignment of rights and benefits and never the assignment of obligations.

Possible Obligation to Insurance Companies

By not clearing up this issue, ICICI Bank could be held to be obligated to the insurance company from whom the assignor took the policy, for example, with respect to insurance premiums which were required to be paid by the assignor. This is not a desirable scenario for ICICI Bank. In case of default by the assignor in the terms of the contract, the right of ICICI Bank over the security deposited (insurance policy in question) could be fraught in the legal dispute.

Possible litigation

Numerous suits may be instituted against ICICI Bank alleging a violation of the Indian Contract Act. Some examples include allegations of concealment of fact, fraud etc. These could be enough to render the existing contract of assignment voidable or even void.

Contra Proferentem

This doctrine applies in a situation when a provision in the contract can be interpreted in more than one way, thereby creating ambiguities. It attempts to provide a solution to interpreting vague terms by laying down, that a party which drafts and imposes an ambiguous term should not benefit from that ambiguity. Where there is any doubt or ambiguity in the words of an exclusion clause, the words are construed more forcibly against the party putting forth the document, and in favour of the other party.[xv]

The doctrine of contra proferentem attempts to protect the layman from the legally knowledgeable companies which draft standard forms of contracts, in which the former stands on a much weaker footing with regard to bargaining power with the latter. This doctrine has been used in interpreting insurance contracts in India.[xvi]

If litigation ensues as a result of this uncertainty, there are high chances that the Courts will tend to favour the assignor and not the drafter of the documents.

POSSIBLE DEFENSES AGAINST DISPUTES FOR THE SECURITY DOCUMENTS AS THEY ARE NOW

This section of the paper attempts to give defences which the Bank may raise in case of any disputes arising out of silence on the matter of assignability of obligations.

Interpretation of the Security Documents

UNIDROIT principles expressly provide a method for interpretation of contracts.[xvii] The method consists of utilizing the following factors:

  •  Preliminary negotiations between the parties

    The negotiations between parties prior to entering into the facility agreement can be used as evidence. The Bank has never represented to the assignee that it would undertake obligations of the assignor. The latter has nothing to warrant the understanding it had regarding the same.

  •  Practices which the parties have established between themselves

    ICICI Bank has been accepting insurance policies assigned to it as security for a facility since a long time. It has never been the practice of ICICI Bank to undertake obligations when insurance policies have been assigned to it.

  •  The conduct of the parties subsequent to the conclusion of the contract

    This defence relates to the concept of estoppel embodied in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to the Section, when one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representatives, to deny the truth of that thing.

    If a man either by words or by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done and that he will not offer any opposition to it, and he thereby induces others to do that which they otherwise might have abstained from, he cannot question legality of the act he had sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have so given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct.[xviii] Subsequent conduct may be relevant to show that the contract exists, or to show variation in the terms of the contract, or waiver, or estoppel.[xix]

    Where the meaning of the instrument is ambiguous, a statement subsequently interpreting such instrument is admissible.[xx] In the present case, where the borrower has never raised any claims with regard to non assignability of obligations on him, and has consented to the present conditions and relations with ICICI Bank, he cannot he cannot be allowed to raise any claims with respect to the same.

    Internationally, the doctrine of post contractual conduct is invoked for such disputes. It refers to the acts of parties to a contract after the commencement of the contract. It stipulates that where a party has behaved in a particular manner, so as to induce the other party to discharge its obligations, even if there has been a variation from the terms of the contract, the first party cannot cite such variation as a reason for its breach of the contract.

    Where the parties to a contract are both under a common mistake as to the meaning or effect of it, and therefore embark on a course of dealing on the footing of that mistake, thereby replacing the original terms of the contract by a conventional basis on which they both conduct their affairs, then the original contract is replaced by the conventional basis. The parties are bound by the conventional basis. Either party can sue or be sued upon it just as if it had been expressly agreed between them.[xxi]

    Thus, where the relations between the assignor and the assignee have never evidenced any acts or intention to act in furtherance of assignability of obligations on the assignee, the assignor cannot state the same.

  • The nature and purpose of the contract

    The importance of consensus ad idem has been concretized by various case laws in India. Further, if the stipulations and terms are uncertain and the parties are not ad idem there can be no specific performance, for there was no contract at all.[xxii]

    In the present case, the minds of the assignor and assignee can be said to have not met while entering into the assignment. The assignee never had any intention of undertaking any obligations of the assignor. In Hartog v Colin & Shields,[xxiii] the defendants made an offer to the plaintiffs to sell hare skins, offering to a pay a price per pound instead of per piece.

    The usual trade practice and previous negotiations indicated that the price was payable per piece, but the plaintiffs accepted the offer anyway. In their suit for non-delivery, it was held that the plaintiffs ought to have known that the offer did not express the true intention of the defendants, and the contract was therefore void. In the present case, it has been neither the practice of ICICI Bank, nor its intention, to undertake obligations of the assignor, in an assignment contract.

  • The meaning is commonly given to terms and expressions in the trade concerned

    In interpreting a contract not specific in its wording, it is necessary to take into consideration the custom of the place and the usual and customary manner of fulfilling like contracts in arriving at what was the reasonable expectation of the parties to the contract at the time it was made.[xxiv] Evidence of general trade practice is admissible to determine any matter in case of any ambiguity. No prudent banking institution will undertake any kind of obligation, originally to be fulfilled by the assignor. This is the general practice of many financial institutions.

  • Usages

    This is similar to the defence of general trade practice as has been discussed in Section 6(e) above. Trade usages are capable of both filling in the gaps in the contract and interpreting the contract’s terms.[xxv] Where a particular word or phrase has a particular meaning in that industry, in the absence of anything to indicate the contrary, it will be interpreted as that meaning itself. The more general and well established a usage is, the stronger is the inference that a party knew or had reason to know of it.

AVOIDING THESE RISKS

To concretize ICICI Bank’s stand on the assignment of obligations in the matter of loans secured by insurance policies, the relevant security documents could be amended to include such a clause.

For instances where loans are secured by life insurance policies, a standard set by the American Banker’s Association (ABA) has been followed by many Indian commercial institutions as well.[xxvi] The ABA is a trade association in the USA representing banks ranging from the smallest community bank to the largest bank holding companies. ABA’s principal activities include lobbying, professional development for member institutions, maintenance of best practices and industry standards, consumer education, and distribution of products and services.[xxvii]

There are several ICICI security documents which have included clauses denying any assignment of obligations to it. An extract of the deed of hypothecation for vehicle loan has been reproduced below:

3. In further pursuance of the Loan Terms and for the consideration aforesaid, the Hypothecator hereby further agrees, confirms, declares and undertakes with the Bank as follows:

(i)(a) The Hypothecator shall at its expenses keep the Assets in good and marketable condition and, if stipulated by the Bank under the Loan Terms, insure such of the Assets which are of insurable nature, in the joint names of the Hypothecator and the Bank against any loss or damage by theft, fire, lightning, earthquake, explosion, riot, strike, civil commotion, storm, tempest, flood, erection risk, war risk and such other risks as may be determined by the Bank and including wherever applicable, all marine, transit and other hazards incidental to the acquisition, transportation and delivery of the relevant Assets to the place of use or installation. The Hypothecator shall deliver to the Bank the relevant policies of insurance and maintain such insurance throughout the continuance of the security of these presents and deliver to the Bank the renewal receipts / endorsements / renewed policies therefore and till such insurance policies / renewal policies / endorsements are delivered to the Bank, the same shall be held by the Hypothecator in trust for the Bank. The Hypothecator shall duly and punctually pay all premia and shall not do or suffer to be done or omit to do or be done any act, which may invalidate or avoid such insurance. In default, the Bank may (but shall not be bound to) keep in good condition and render marketable the relevant Assets and take out / renew such insurance. Any premium paid by the Bank and any costs, charges and expenses incurred by the Bank shall forthwith on receipt of a notice of demand from the Bank be reimbursed by the Hypothecator and/or Borrower to the Bank together with interest thereon at the rate for further interest as specified under the Loan Terms, from the date of payment till reimbursement thereof and until such reimbursement, the same shall be a charge on the Assets…”

The inclusion of such a clause in all security documents of the Bank can avoid the problem of assignability of obligations in insurance policies used as security for any facility sanctioned by it.

CONCLUSION

An assignment of securities is of utmost importance to any lender to secure the facility, without which the lender will not be entitled to any interest in the securities so deposited.

In this paper, one has seen the need for assignment of securities of a facility. Risks involved in not having a separate clause dealing with non assignability of obligations have been discussed. Certain defences which ICICI Bank may raise in case of the dispute have also been enumerated along with solutions to the same.

Formatted by March 2nd, 2019.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[i] J.H. Tod v. Lakhmidas, 16 Bom 441, 449

[ii] http://www.licindia.in/policy_conditions.htm#12, last visited 30th June, 2014

[iii] Headwaters Construction Co. Ltd. v National City Mortgage Co. Ltd., 720 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Idaho 2010)

[iv] Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act, Mulla, Vol. I, 13th Edn., Reprint 2010, p 968

[v] Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Raymond & Co., AIR 1962 SC 1810: (1963) 3 SCR 183

[vi] Principles of Insurance Law, M.N. Srinivasan, 8th Edn., 2006, p. 857

[vii] Ram Baran v Ram Mohit, AIR 1967 SC 744: (1967) 1 SCR 293

[viii] Sri Sarada Mills Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 281

[ix] Lala Kapurchand Godha v Mir Nawah Himayatali Khan, [1963] 2 SCR 168

[x] Velayudhan v Pillaiyar, 9 Mad LT 102 (Mad)

[xi] Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. Ltd. v Satteya, AIR 1961 AP 183

[xii] Mulraj Khatau v Vishwanath, 40 IA 24 – Respondent based his claim on a mere deposit of the policy and not under a written transfer and claimed that a charge had thus been created on the policy.

[xiii] Insure Policy Plus Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v The Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2007(109)BOMLR559

[xiv] Transfer of Property Act, Sanjiva Row, 7th Edn., 2011, Vol II, Universal Law Publishing Company, New Delhi

[xv] Ghaziabad Development Authority v Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2003

[xvi] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v M/s. Pushpalaya Printers, [2004] 3 SCR 631, General Assurance Society Ltd. v Chandumull Jain & Anr., [1966 (3) SCR 500]

[xvii] UNIDROIT Principles, Art 4.3

[xviii] B.L.Sreedhar & Ors. v K.M. Munireddy & Ors., 2002 (9) SCALE 183

[xix] James Miller & Partners Ltd. v Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd., [1970] 1 All ER 796 (HL)

[xx] Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 32

[xxi] Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd., [1981] 1 All ER 923

[xxii] Smt. Mayawanti v Smt. Kaushalya Devi, 1990 SCR (2) 350

[xxiii] [1939] 3 All ER 566

[xxiv] Terrell v Alexandria Auto Co., 12 La.App. 625

[xxv] http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/CISG25/Pamboukis.pdf, last visited on 30th June, 2014

[xxvi] https://www.phoenixwm.phl.com/shared/eforms/getdoc.jsp?DocId=525.pdf, last visited on 30th June, 2014

[xxvii] http://www.aba.com/About/Pages/default.aspx, last visited on 30th June, 2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *