ivil Appeal Nos
188 89 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 2111
1986 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in First Appeal Order Nos
620  619 of 1986
571 KK Jain and Pramod Dayal for the Appellant
Meera Chhabra and Ms Pani Chhabra for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
These are appeals by special leave challenging the reversing common decision of the Punjab  Haryana High Court holding the insurer liable for compensa tion under the of 1939
The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that the policy had been taken after the accident and therefore it had no liability to meet the award of compensation against the owner
The Tribunal accepted this stand and rejected the claim against the insurer
In appeal the High Court took the view relying upon certain decisions that the insurance policy obtained on the date of the accident became operative from the commencement of the date of insurance ie from the previous mid night and since the accident took place on the date of the policy the insurer became liable
Apart from the judgment under appeal we find that this view is supported by two judgments of the Madras High Court and an earlier decision of the Punjab  Haryana High Court Two Division Benches of the Madras High Court have taken the view after discussing the law at length that the policy taken during any part of the day becomes operative from the commencement of that day
Besides these judgments a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jaddoo Singh  Anr
vs Smt
Malti Devi  Anr AIR 1983 All 87 supports this view on principle
There is evidence in this case that the vehicle was insured earlier upto 318
1984 and the same was available to be renewed but instead of obtaining renewal a fresh insurance was taken from 28th of September 1984 which is the date of the accident
We are inclined to agree with the view indicated in these decisions that when a policy is taken on a particular date its effectiveness is from the commencement of the date and therefore the High Court in our opinion was right in holding that the insurer was liable in terms of the Act to meet the inability of the owner under the award
As pointed out in Stroud s judicial Dictionary Date  means day so that where a cover not providing for temporary insurance of a motor 572 car expires 15 days after date of commencement it runs for the full 15 days after the day on which it was to commence
 Similarly it has been stated in Stroud that a bill of exchange or note is of the date expressed on its face not the time when it is actually issued To the same effect is the decision in Re F  B Warren where it has been held that a judicial act will be referred to the first moment of the day on which it is done
A payment made by a bankrupt in the morning of a day is therefore not made within section 45 of the Bank ruptcy Act 1914 before the date of a receiving order made later in the same day
The ratio of these also supports the view we have taken
The appeals fails and are dismissed
There would howev er be no order for costs
NPV Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The appellant gave the highest bid at the auction of an arrack shop but his bid was considered inadequate
The shop was re auctioned and the bid of C  was provisionally ac cepted
C  failed to comply with certain requirements and the shop was again re auctioned in which the bid offered was lower than that offered by the appellant in the original sale
The respondent sought recovery of the difference between the original sale amount and the resale amount from the appellant under Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops Disposal in Auction Rules 1981
The appel lant challenged the recovery by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by a Single Judge and the decision was confirmed by a Division Bench on appeal
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that since his bid was not confirmed under the rules no recovery can be made from him and that C  whose bid was provisionally accepted was liable for the notional loss
The respondent however contended that since C  failed to comply with Rule 15 his bid was not provi sionally accepted and hence he was not liable for the re sultant loss
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1
Normally it may be correct to say that the sale officer under Rule 16 accepts provisionally the bid after there is compliance of Rule 15 but in the instant case the Court is concerned with the re auction and about the liabil ity of the original highest bidder in the light of Rule 204
616D E 610 2
In view of the document dated 19th June 1981 it must be held that the bid of C  was accepted provisionally by the Sale Officer and by virtue of Rule 20 sub Rule 4 when once the bid of C  was accepted provisionally as the high est bid the bid with which the sale began namely the bid of the appellant got lapsed and consequently the appellant cannot be held liable for the resultant loss
616C D