In Brief
A State Finance Corporation insured machinery under a burglary and house breaking policy but claimed for theft when plant parts went missing from factory premises without forcible entry. The insurer rejected the claim, and the MRTP Commission upheld the rejection. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that 'burglary' under the policy requires forcible and violent entry as a condition precedent to theft. Plain reading of the policy terms leaves no ambiguity; therefore, the rule favouring insured interpretation does not apply. Insurance contracts must be construed strictly like any commercial contract.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.