Semantic Analysis by spaCy
B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.
Decided On : Jan-16-2002
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Regulations 13', (int) 2 => 'Regulations 13 to 17', (int) 3 => 'the Agents Regulations', (int) 4 => 'Regulations 13 to 17' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dattu', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation'', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 3 => 'Smt', (int) 4 => 'B.S. Girija', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'Smt', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Competent Authority under Regulation', (int) 12 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 13 => 'W.P. No', (int) 14 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 15 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Counsel that Regulation 17(1', (int) 21 => 'Regulations', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'Counsel', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 25 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of', (int) 26 => 'the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 29 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'Court', (int) 31 => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 32 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 33 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 34 => 'Corporation', (int) 35 => 'Regulations', (int) 36 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 37 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Habbu', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'under:'It', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 47 => 'Court', (int) 48 => 'Corporation', (int) 49 => 'Corporation', (int) 50 => 'Corporation', (int) 51 => 'The Apex Court', (int) 52 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 53 => 'Smt', (int) 54 => 'Corporation', (int) 55 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 56 => 'Court', (int) 57 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 58 => 'Court', (int) 59 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 60 => 'Regulations', (int) 61 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 62 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 63 => 'Corporation', (int) 64 => 'Regulations', (int) 65 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 3 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 4 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 5 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 6 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 7 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 8 => 'Regulation 17(1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => 'the year 1983', (int) 2 => '16-4-1992', (int) 3 => 'the year 1986', (int) 4 => '18-11-1993', (int) 5 => '29166 of 1997', (int) 6 => '1997', (int) 7 => '1972', (int) 8 => '1956', (int) 9 => 'one month's', (int) 10 => 'one month's', (int) 11 => 'one month's', (int) 12 => 'the period of one month', (int) 13 => '1972', (int) 14 => '1972', (int) 15 => '1972', (int) 16 => 'one month's', (int) 17 => '1972', (int) 18 => 'one month's', (int) 19 => 'one month's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'Second', (int) 3 => 'second' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'one', (int) 1 => 'one', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '25', (int) 4 => '29', (int) 5 => '25', (int) 6 => '25', (int) 7 => '27', (int) 8 => '3', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '6', (int) 11 => '21', (int) 12 => '9-3-1998', (int) 13 => '21', (int) 14 => '9-3-1998', (int) 15 => '1972.7', (int) 16 => '16', (int) 17 => '17', (int) 18 => '17', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '17(1' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 16', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 4', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 4' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9-1-1998' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Brahmarayappa', (int) 1 => 'Visveswara', (int) 2 => 'justice.8', (int) 3 => 'Sri Brahmarayappa', (int) 4 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 5 => 'Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 6 => 'S. B. P. Habbu', (int) 7 => 'notice.10', (int) 8 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 9 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 10 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 11 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 12 => 'Lalitha Devi's' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulations' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Smt', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Smt' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371993', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 49; Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - Regulations 13 to 17', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 12528 and 12529 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Service - termination - Regulations 13 to 17 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - petitioners contended that respondent could not terminate their service as agents of respondent without providing them opportunity of hearing - further Regulation 17 (1) opposed to principles of natural justice - relation between petitioners and respondents was that of principal and agent - agency could be terminated by respondent in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 - one month's notice in writing given by respondent to petitioners satisfied requirements of principles of natural justice - petition dismissed. - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Venkatachala, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-01-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.L. Dattu, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.L. Dattu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioners are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 ('Regulations' for short).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">First petitioner is working as agent in the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B.S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent- Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent-Corporation one way or the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Second petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1986. He got married to one Smt. Sophia on 18-11-1993. After the marriage with Smt. Sophia, by his letter dated 25-9-1995, he had informed the respondent-Corporation about the marriage and also had requested the respondent-Corporation to continue his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears, by a letter dated 29-9-1995, the respondent-Corporation had accepted the explanation offered by the second petitioner by his letter dated 25-9-1995 and had condoned the act of non-disclosure of the marriage and further continued his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By an order dated 25-9-1997 and 27-9-1997 respectively, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 16 of the Agency Regulations, had directed the petitioners not to canvas or procure life insurance business with immediate effect. Those notices were the subject-matters of writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 connected with Writ Petition No. 29166 of 1997. This Court by its order dated 9-1-1998 was pleased to dispose of the writ petitions on a concession made by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Court was pleased to observe as under;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Mr. Brahmarayappa, however, sought liberty to proceed against the petitioners for termination of their agencies in exercise of the powers vested in the Competent Authority under Regulation 16(1) of the aforementioned Regulations. This was opposed by Mr. Visveswara, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, according to whom the facts and the circumstances of the cases did not permit the Competent Authority exercising the power of termination on the same set of facts based on which the petitioners had been earlier notified and warned to be careful in future. He urged that the earlier proceedings leading to the issue of a warning to the petitioner for the same default as is now alleged against him should constitute a final determination of the controversy preventing a fresh look on the same at a subsequent stage. I am not however inclined to examine whether the previous proceedings initiated against the petitioner in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 would constitute a valid bar against the respondent initiating fresh proceedings against the said petitioner. Interest of justice would, in my opinion, be sufficiently served if I direct that the petitioner in the said writ petition would be entitled to raise all such defences as may be otherwise open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose to them by way of termination of his licence in exercise of its power under Regulation 16(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Similarly, the petitioner in the other writ petition shall also be entitled to raise all such defences as may be open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose in terms of the said regulation. Subject to what has been stated above and reserving liberty for the parties as indicated, these petitions are disposed off leaving the parties to bear their own costs'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After disposal of the writ petitions, the respondent-Corporation through their letter dated 21-2-1998 and communication dated 9-3-1998, have terminated the services of the petitioners as agents of the respondent-Corporation by invoking Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter and the communications dated 21-2-1998 and 9-3-1998, petitioners are before this Court inter alia questioning the vires of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contends before this Court that the respondent-Corporation without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners could not have terminated the service of the petitioners as agents of the Corporation. It is nextly contended by the learned Counsel that Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is opposed to the principles of natural justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Sri Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation has filed the statement of objections on behalf of the Corporation and at the time of hearing of the matters, learned Counsel has brought to my notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Lalitha Devi, the observations made by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, in Smt. Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. B. P. Habbu v. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, and submits that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court and a Division Bench of this Court, petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought in these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Life Insurance Corporation of India has framed regulations defining the method of recruitment of agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the terms and conditions of their appointment and work in exercise of their powers under Section 49 of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>. In the dictionary clause of the regulations, the meaning of the expression 'agent' is defined. It means, a person, who has been appointed under Regulation 4 of the regulations and includes an absorbed agent. The appointment of an agent is made by the Corporation for the purpose of soliciting or procuring life insurance business for the Corporation. Regulation 16 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency for certain lapses. Regulation 17 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency by notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has invoked Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations to terminate the agency of the petitioners by issuing one month's notice. Regulation 17 of the Regulations is as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17. Termination of agency by notice.--(1) The appointment of an agent may be terminated by the Competent Authority at any time by giving one month's notice thereof in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) An agent may, by giving one month's notice in writing to the Competent Authority, discontinue his agency and after the expiry of the period of one month, his agency shall stand terminated'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.B.P. Habbu, supra, was pleased to state the relationship of the Corporation vis-a-vis the agent. In the said decision, the Court was pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is necessary to bear in mind that the appellant was not an employee of the Corporation but the relationship was that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. The Corporation can terminate the agency of the petitioners in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Devi, supra, was pleased to state:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The respondent was an absorbed agent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Since, her husband was in service of the appellant, the respondent's agency was rightly terminated in accordance with Regulation 17(1) of the Agents Regulations, 1972. Before terminating the respondent's agency, the appellant had taken care to serve notice on her. We are of the opinion that the order of termination of respondent's agency did not suffer from any legal infirmity and the High Court committed error in quashing the same. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. That was a case where Smt. Lalitha Devi, who was an agent of the Corporation governed by the provisions of Regulations 1972, had married a person, who was in service of the respondent-Corporation. Her agency came to be terminated by the respondent-Corporation by invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations. The action of the respondent-Corporation has been upheld by the Apex Court in Lalitha Devi's case, supra. The Court has gone to the extent of saying that the order of termination passed by the respondent-Corporation does not suffer from any legal infirmity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and also the observations made by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, let me notice the fact situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed by the petitioners that they were appointed as agents of the respondent-Corporation in exercise of their powers under Regulation 4 of the Regulations. The relationship of the petitioners and the respondent-Corporation is that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by Regulations 1972. Their agency can be terminated by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations. These petitioners, who were agents of the respondent-Corporation, were married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation. This action of the petitioners is contrary to the terms and conditions of the statutory regulations. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations have terminated the services of the petitioners by giving one month's notice in writing. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, I cannot take exception to the action of the respondent-Corporation in invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations 1972 to terminate the agencies of the petitioners, since as agents they have got married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations authorises the Competent Authority to terminate the agency by giving one month's notice. Since petitioners are not employees of the respondent-Corporation, and since they are only the agents of the Corporation, in my opinion, one month's notice in writing given by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioners would satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I cannot accede to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners that the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is either arbitrary or violative of any other constitutional provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, writ petitions are rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2002Kant113; ILR2002KAR1400; 2002(2)KarLJ213', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '371993' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Regulations 13', (int) 2 => 'Regulations 13 to 17', (int) 3 => 'the Agents Regulations', (int) 4 => 'Regulations 13 to 17' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dattu', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation'', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 3 => 'Smt', (int) 4 => 'B.S. Girija', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'Smt', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Competent Authority under Regulation', (int) 12 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 13 => 'W.P. No', (int) 14 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 15 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Counsel that Regulation 17(1', (int) 21 => 'Regulations', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'Counsel', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 25 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of', (int) 26 => 'the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 29 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'Court', (int) 31 => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 32 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 33 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 34 => 'Corporation', (int) 35 => 'Regulations', (int) 36 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 37 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Habbu', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'under:'It', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 47 => 'Court', (int) 48 => 'Corporation', (int) 49 => 'Corporation', (int) 50 => 'Corporation', (int) 51 => 'The Apex Court', (int) 52 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 53 => 'Smt', (int) 54 => 'Corporation', (int) 55 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 56 => 'Court', (int) 57 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 58 => 'Court', (int) 59 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 60 => 'Regulations', (int) 61 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 62 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 63 => 'Corporation', (int) 64 => 'Regulations', (int) 65 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 3 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 4 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 5 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 6 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 7 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 8 => 'Regulation 17(1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => 'the year 1983', (int) 2 => '16-4-1992', (int) 3 => 'the year 1986', (int) 4 => '18-11-1993', (int) 5 => '29166 of 1997', (int) 6 => '1997', (int) 7 => '1972', (int) 8 => '1956', (int) 9 => 'one month's', (int) 10 => 'one month's', (int) 11 => 'one month's', (int) 12 => 'the period of one month', (int) 13 => '1972', (int) 14 => '1972', (int) 15 => '1972', (int) 16 => 'one month's', (int) 17 => '1972', (int) 18 => 'one month's', (int) 19 => 'one month's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'Second', (int) 3 => 'second' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'one', (int) 1 => 'one', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '25', (int) 4 => '29', (int) 5 => '25', (int) 6 => '25', (int) 7 => '27', (int) 8 => '3', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '6', (int) 11 => '21', (int) 12 => '9-3-1998', (int) 13 => '21', (int) 14 => '9-3-1998', (int) 15 => '1972.7', (int) 16 => '16', (int) 17 => '17', (int) 18 => '17', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '17(1' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 16', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 4', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 4' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9-1-1998' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Brahmarayappa', (int) 1 => 'Visveswara', (int) 2 => 'justice.8', (int) 3 => 'Sri Brahmarayappa', (int) 4 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 5 => 'Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 6 => 'S. B. P. Habbu', (int) 7 => 'notice.10', (int) 8 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 9 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 10 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 11 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 12 => 'Lalitha Devi's' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulations' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Smt', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Smt' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371993', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 49; Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - Regulations 13 to 17', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 12528 and 12529 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Service - termination - Regulations 13 to 17 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - petitioners contended that respondent could not terminate their service as agents of respondent without providing them opportunity of hearing - further Regulation 17 (1) opposed to principles of natural justice - relation between petitioners and respondents was that of principal and agent - agency could be terminated by respondent in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 - one month's notice in writing given by respondent to petitioners satisfied requirements of principles of natural justice - petition dismissed. - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Venkatachala, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-01-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.L. Dattu, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.L. Dattu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioners are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 ('Regulations' for short).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">First petitioner is working as agent in the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B.S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent- Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent-Corporation one way or the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Second petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1986. He got married to one Smt. Sophia on 18-11-1993. After the marriage with Smt. Sophia, by his letter dated 25-9-1995, he had informed the respondent-Corporation about the marriage and also had requested the respondent-Corporation to continue his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears, by a letter dated 29-9-1995, the respondent-Corporation had accepted the explanation offered by the second petitioner by his letter dated 25-9-1995 and had condoned the act of non-disclosure of the marriage and further continued his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By an order dated 25-9-1997 and 27-9-1997 respectively, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 16 of the Agency Regulations, had directed the petitioners not to canvas or procure life insurance business with immediate effect. Those notices were the subject-matters of writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 connected with Writ Petition No. 29166 of 1997. This Court by its order dated 9-1-1998 was pleased to dispose of the writ petitions on a concession made by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Court was pleased to observe as under;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Mr. Brahmarayappa, however, sought liberty to proceed against the petitioners for termination of their agencies in exercise of the powers vested in the Competent Authority under Regulation 16(1) of the aforementioned Regulations. This was opposed by Mr. Visveswara, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, according to whom the facts and the circumstances of the cases did not permit the Competent Authority exercising the power of termination on the same set of facts based on which the petitioners had been earlier notified and warned to be careful in future. He urged that the earlier proceedings leading to the issue of a warning to the petitioner for the same default as is now alleged against him should constitute a final determination of the controversy preventing a fresh look on the same at a subsequent stage. I am not however inclined to examine whether the previous proceedings initiated against the petitioner in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 would constitute a valid bar against the respondent initiating fresh proceedings against the said petitioner. Interest of justice would, in my opinion, be sufficiently served if I direct that the petitioner in the said writ petition would be entitled to raise all such defences as may be otherwise open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose to them by way of termination of his licence in exercise of its power under Regulation 16(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Similarly, the petitioner in the other writ petition shall also be entitled to raise all such defences as may be open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose in terms of the said regulation. Subject to what has been stated above and reserving liberty for the parties as indicated, these petitions are disposed off leaving the parties to bear their own costs'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After disposal of the writ petitions, the respondent-Corporation through their letter dated 21-2-1998 and communication dated 9-3-1998, have terminated the services of the petitioners as agents of the respondent-Corporation by invoking Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter and the communications dated 21-2-1998 and 9-3-1998, petitioners are before this Court inter alia questioning the vires of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contends before this Court that the respondent-Corporation without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners could not have terminated the service of the petitioners as agents of the Corporation. It is nextly contended by the learned Counsel that Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is opposed to the principles of natural justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Sri Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation has filed the statement of objections on behalf of the Corporation and at the time of hearing of the matters, learned Counsel has brought to my notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Lalitha Devi, the observations made by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, in Smt. Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. B. P. Habbu v. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, and submits that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court and a Division Bench of this Court, petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought in these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Life Insurance Corporation of India has framed regulations defining the method of recruitment of agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the terms and conditions of their appointment and work in exercise of their powers under Section 49 of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>. In the dictionary clause of the regulations, the meaning of the expression 'agent' is defined. It means, a person, who has been appointed under Regulation 4 of the regulations and includes an absorbed agent. The appointment of an agent is made by the Corporation for the purpose of soliciting or procuring life insurance business for the Corporation. Regulation 16 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency for certain lapses. Regulation 17 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency by notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has invoked Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations to terminate the agency of the petitioners by issuing one month's notice. Regulation 17 of the Regulations is as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17. Termination of agency by notice.--(1) The appointment of an agent may be terminated by the Competent Authority at any time by giving one month's notice thereof in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) An agent may, by giving one month's notice in writing to the Competent Authority, discontinue his agency and after the expiry of the period of one month, his agency shall stand terminated'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.B.P. Habbu, supra, was pleased to state the relationship of the Corporation vis-a-vis the agent. In the said decision, the Court was pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is necessary to bear in mind that the appellant was not an employee of the Corporation but the relationship was that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. The Corporation can terminate the agency of the petitioners in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Devi, supra, was pleased to state:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The respondent was an absorbed agent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Since, her husband was in service of the appellant, the respondent's agency was rightly terminated in accordance with Regulation 17(1) of the Agents Regulations, 1972. Before terminating the respondent's agency, the appellant had taken care to serve notice on her. We are of the opinion that the order of termination of respondent's agency did not suffer from any legal infirmity and the High Court committed error in quashing the same. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. That was a case where Smt. Lalitha Devi, who was an agent of the Corporation governed by the provisions of Regulations 1972, had married a person, who was in service of the respondent-Corporation. Her agency came to be terminated by the respondent-Corporation by invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations. The action of the respondent-Corporation has been upheld by the Apex Court in Lalitha Devi's case, supra. The Court has gone to the extent of saying that the order of termination passed by the respondent-Corporation does not suffer from any legal infirmity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and also the observations made by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, let me notice the fact situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed by the petitioners that they were appointed as agents of the respondent-Corporation in exercise of their powers under Regulation 4 of the Regulations. The relationship of the petitioners and the respondent-Corporation is that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by Regulations 1972. Their agency can be terminated by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations. These petitioners, who were agents of the respondent-Corporation, were married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation. This action of the petitioners is contrary to the terms and conditions of the statutory regulations. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations have terminated the services of the petitioners by giving one month's notice in writing. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, I cannot take exception to the action of the respondent-Corporation in invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations 1972 to terminate the agencies of the petitioners, since as agents they have got married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations authorises the Competent Authority to terminate the agency by giving one month's notice. Since petitioners are not employees of the respondent-Corporation, and since they are only the agents of the Corporation, in my opinion, one month's notice in writing given by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioners would satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I cannot accede to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners that the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is either arbitrary or violative of any other constitutional provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, writ petitions are rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2002Kant113; ILR2002KAR1400; 2002(2)KarLJ213', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '371993' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Regulations 13', (int) 2 => 'Regulations 13 to 17', (int) 3 => 'the Agents Regulations', (int) 4 => 'Regulations 13 to 17' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dattu', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation'', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 3 => 'Smt', (int) 4 => 'B.S. Girija', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'Smt', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Competent Authority under Regulation', (int) 12 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 13 => 'W.P. No', (int) 14 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 15 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Counsel that Regulation 17(1', (int) 21 => 'Regulations', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'Counsel', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 25 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of', (int) 26 => 'the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 29 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'Court', (int) 31 => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 32 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 33 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 34 => 'Corporation', (int) 35 => 'Regulations', (int) 36 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 37 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Habbu', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'under:'It', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 47 => 'Court', (int) 48 => 'Corporation', (int) 49 => 'Corporation', (int) 50 => 'Corporation', (int) 51 => 'The Apex Court', (int) 52 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 53 => 'Smt', (int) 54 => 'Corporation', (int) 55 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 56 => 'Court', (int) 57 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 58 => 'Court', (int) 59 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 60 => 'Regulations', (int) 61 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 62 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 63 => 'Corporation', (int) 64 => 'Regulations', (int) 65 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 3 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 4 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 5 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 6 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 7 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 8 => 'Regulation 17(1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => 'the year 1983', (int) 2 => '16-4-1992', (int) 3 => 'the year 1986', (int) 4 => '18-11-1993', (int) 5 => '29166 of 1997', (int) 6 => '1997', (int) 7 => '1972', (int) 8 => '1956', (int) 9 => 'one month's', (int) 10 => 'one month's', (int) 11 => 'one month's', (int) 12 => 'the period of one month', (int) 13 => '1972', (int) 14 => '1972', (int) 15 => '1972', (int) 16 => 'one month's', (int) 17 => '1972', (int) 18 => 'one month's', (int) 19 => 'one month's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'Second', (int) 3 => 'second' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'one', (int) 1 => 'one', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '25', (int) 4 => '29', (int) 5 => '25', (int) 6 => '25', (int) 7 => '27', (int) 8 => '3', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '6', (int) 11 => '21', (int) 12 => '9-3-1998', (int) 13 => '21', (int) 14 => '9-3-1998', (int) 15 => '1972.7', (int) 16 => '16', (int) 17 => '17', (int) 18 => '17', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '17(1' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 16', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 4', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 4' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9-1-1998' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Brahmarayappa', (int) 1 => 'Visveswara', (int) 2 => 'justice.8', (int) 3 => 'Sri Brahmarayappa', (int) 4 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 5 => 'Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 6 => 'S. B. P. Habbu', (int) 7 => 'notice.10', (int) 8 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 9 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 10 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 11 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 12 => 'Lalitha Devi's' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulations' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Smt', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Smt' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371993', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 49; Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - Regulations 13 to 17', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 12528 and 12529 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Service - termination - Regulations 13 to 17 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - petitioners contended that respondent could not terminate their service as agents of respondent without providing them opportunity of hearing - further Regulation 17 (1) opposed to principles of natural justice - relation between petitioners and respondents was that of principal and agent - agency could be terminated by respondent in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 - one month's notice in writing given by respondent to petitioners satisfied requirements of principles of natural justice - petition dismissed. - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Venkatachala, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-01-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.L. Dattu, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.L. Dattu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioners are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 ('Regulations' for short).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">First petitioner is working as agent in the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B.S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent- Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent-Corporation one way or the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Second petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1986. He got married to one Smt. Sophia on 18-11-1993. After the marriage with Smt. Sophia, by his letter dated 25-9-1995, he had informed the respondent-Corporation about the marriage and also had requested the respondent-Corporation to continue his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears, by a letter dated 29-9-1995, the respondent-Corporation had accepted the explanation offered by the second petitioner by his letter dated 25-9-1995 and had condoned the act of non-disclosure of the marriage and further continued his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By an order dated 25-9-1997 and 27-9-1997 respectively, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 16 of the Agency Regulations, had directed the petitioners not to canvas or procure life insurance business with immediate effect. Those notices were the subject-matters of writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 connected with Writ Petition No. 29166 of 1997. This Court by its order dated 9-1-1998 was pleased to dispose of the writ petitions on a concession made by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Court was pleased to observe as under;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Mr. Brahmarayappa, however, sought liberty to proceed against the petitioners for termination of their agencies in exercise of the powers vested in the Competent Authority under Regulation 16(1) of the aforementioned Regulations. This was opposed by Mr. Visveswara, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, according to whom the facts and the circumstances of the cases did not permit the Competent Authority exercising the power of termination on the same set of facts based on which the petitioners had been earlier notified and warned to be careful in future. He urged that the earlier proceedings leading to the issue of a warning to the petitioner for the same default as is now alleged against him should constitute a final determination of the controversy preventing a fresh look on the same at a subsequent stage. I am not however inclined to examine whether the previous proceedings initiated against the petitioner in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 would constitute a valid bar against the respondent initiating fresh proceedings against the said petitioner. Interest of justice would, in my opinion, be sufficiently served if I direct that the petitioner in the said writ petition would be entitled to raise all such defences as may be otherwise open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose to them by way of termination of his licence in exercise of its power under Regulation 16(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Similarly, the petitioner in the other writ petition shall also be entitled to raise all such defences as may be open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose in terms of the said regulation. Subject to what has been stated above and reserving liberty for the parties as indicated, these petitions are disposed off leaving the parties to bear their own costs'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After disposal of the writ petitions, the respondent-Corporation through their letter dated 21-2-1998 and communication dated 9-3-1998, have terminated the services of the petitioners as agents of the respondent-Corporation by invoking Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter and the communications dated 21-2-1998 and 9-3-1998, petitioners are before this Court inter alia questioning the vires of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contends before this Court that the respondent-Corporation without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners could not have terminated the service of the petitioners as agents of the Corporation. It is nextly contended by the learned Counsel that Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is opposed to the principles of natural justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Sri Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation has filed the statement of objections on behalf of the Corporation and at the time of hearing of the matters, learned Counsel has brought to my notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Lalitha Devi, the observations made by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, in Smt. Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. B. P. Habbu v. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, and submits that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court and a Division Bench of this Court, petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought in these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Life Insurance Corporation of India has framed regulations defining the method of recruitment of agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the terms and conditions of their appointment and work in exercise of their powers under Section 49 of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>. In the dictionary clause of the regulations, the meaning of the expression 'agent' is defined. It means, a person, who has been appointed under Regulation 4 of the regulations and includes an absorbed agent. The appointment of an agent is made by the Corporation for the purpose of soliciting or procuring life insurance business for the Corporation. Regulation 16 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency for certain lapses. Regulation 17 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency by notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has invoked Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations to terminate the agency of the petitioners by issuing one month's notice. Regulation 17 of the Regulations is as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17. Termination of agency by notice.--(1) The appointment of an agent may be terminated by the Competent Authority at any time by giving one month's notice thereof in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) An agent may, by giving one month's notice in writing to the Competent Authority, discontinue his agency and after the expiry of the period of one month, his agency shall stand terminated'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.B.P. Habbu, supra, was pleased to state the relationship of the Corporation vis-a-vis the agent. In the said decision, the Court was pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is necessary to bear in mind that the appellant was not an employee of the Corporation but the relationship was that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. The Corporation can terminate the agency of the petitioners in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Devi, supra, was pleased to state:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The respondent was an absorbed agent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Since, her husband was in service of the appellant, the respondent's agency was rightly terminated in accordance with Regulation 17(1) of the Agents Regulations, 1972. Before terminating the respondent's agency, the appellant had taken care to serve notice on her. We are of the opinion that the order of termination of respondent's agency did not suffer from any legal infirmity and the High Court committed error in quashing the same. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. That was a case where Smt. Lalitha Devi, who was an agent of the Corporation governed by the provisions of Regulations 1972, had married a person, who was in service of the respondent-Corporation. Her agency came to be terminated by the respondent-Corporation by invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations. The action of the respondent-Corporation has been upheld by the Apex Court in Lalitha Devi's case, supra. The Court has gone to the extent of saying that the order of termination passed by the respondent-Corporation does not suffer from any legal infirmity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and also the observations made by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, let me notice the fact situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed by the petitioners that they were appointed as agents of the respondent-Corporation in exercise of their powers under Regulation 4 of the Regulations. The relationship of the petitioners and the respondent-Corporation is that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by Regulations 1972. Their agency can be terminated by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations. These petitioners, who were agents of the respondent-Corporation, were married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation. This action of the petitioners is contrary to the terms and conditions of the statutory regulations. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations have terminated the services of the petitioners by giving one month's notice in writing. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, I cannot take exception to the action of the respondent-Corporation in invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations 1972 to terminate the agencies of the petitioners, since as agents they have got married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations authorises the Competent Authority to terminate the agency by giving one month's notice. Since petitioners are not employees of the respondent-Corporation, and since they are only the agents of the Corporation, in my opinion, one month's notice in writing given by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioners would satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I cannot accede to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners that the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is either arbitrary or violative of any other constitutional provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, writ petitions are rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2002Kant113; ILR2002KAR1400; 2002(2)KarLJ213', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '371993' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 49', (int) 1 => 'Regulations 13', (int) 2 => 'Regulations 13 to 17', (int) 3 => 'the Agents Regulations', (int) 4 => 'Regulations 13 to 17' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Dattu', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation'', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations', (int) 3 => 'Smt', (int) 4 => 'B.S. Girija', (int) 5 => 'Corporation', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'Smt', (int) 8 => 'Court', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Competent Authority under Regulation', (int) 12 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 13 => 'W.P. No', (int) 14 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 15 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 16 => 'Court', (int) 17 => 'Learned Counsel', (int) 18 => 'Court', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Counsel that Regulation 17(1', (int) 21 => 'Regulations', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'Counsel', (int) 24 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 25 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of', (int) 26 => 'the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad', (int) 27 => 'Court', (int) 28 => 'Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 29 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 30 => 'Court', (int) 31 => 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 32 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 33 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 34 => 'Corporation', (int) 35 => 'Regulations', (int) 36 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 37 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 38 => 'Court', (int) 39 => 'Habbu', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Court', (int) 42 => 'under:'It', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 47 => 'Court', (int) 48 => 'Corporation', (int) 49 => 'Corporation', (int) 50 => 'Corporation', (int) 51 => 'The Apex Court', (int) 52 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 53 => 'Smt', (int) 54 => 'Corporation', (int) 55 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 56 => 'Court', (int) 57 => 'the Division Bench', (int) 58 => 'Court', (int) 59 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 60 => 'Regulations', (int) 61 => 'the Apex Court', (int) 62 => 'the Competent Authority', (int) 63 => 'Corporation', (int) 64 => 'Regulations', (int) 65 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 3 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 4 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 5 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 6 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 7 => 'Regulation 17(1', (int) 8 => 'Regulation 17(1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => 'the year 1983', (int) 2 => '16-4-1992', (int) 3 => 'the year 1986', (int) 4 => '18-11-1993', (int) 5 => '29166 of 1997', (int) 6 => '1997', (int) 7 => '1972', (int) 8 => '1956', (int) 9 => 'one month's', (int) 10 => 'one month's', (int) 11 => 'one month's', (int) 12 => 'the period of one month', (int) 13 => '1972', (int) 14 => '1972', (int) 15 => '1972', (int) 16 => 'one month's', (int) 17 => '1972', (int) 18 => 'one month's', (int) 19 => 'one month's' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'First', (int) 1 => 'first', (int) 2 => 'Second', (int) 3 => 'second' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'one', (int) 1 => 'one', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => '25', (int) 4 => '29', (int) 5 => '25', (int) 6 => '25', (int) 7 => '27', (int) 8 => '3', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => '6', (int) 11 => '21', (int) 12 => '9-3-1998', (int) 13 => '21', (int) 14 => '9-3-1998', (int) 15 => '1972.7', (int) 16 => '16', (int) 17 => '17', (int) 18 => '17', (int) 19 => '2', (int) 20 => '11', (int) 21 => '17(1' ), 'EVENT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulation 16', (int) 1 => 'Regulation 4', (int) 2 => 'Regulation 4' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => '9-1-1998' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Brahmarayappa', (int) 1 => 'Visveswara', (int) 2 => 'justice.8', (int) 3 => 'Sri Brahmarayappa', (int) 4 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 5 => 'Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 6 => 'S. B. P. Habbu', (int) 7 => 'notice.10', (int) 8 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 9 => 'Lalitha Devi', (int) 10 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 11 => 'Lalitha Devi's', (int) 12 => 'Lalitha Devi's' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Regulations' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Counsel', (int) 1 => 'Smt', (int) 2 => 'Smt', (int) 3 => 'Smt' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '371993', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 49; Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - Regulations 13 to 17', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 12528 and 12529 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'B.K. Vadiraja and anr. Vs. the Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Service - termination - Regulations 13 to 17 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - petitioners contended that respondent could not terminate their service as agents of respondent without providing them opportunity of hearing - further Regulation 17 (1) opposed to principles of natural justice - relation between petitioners and respondents was that of principal and agent - agency could be terminated by respondent in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 - one month's notice in writing given by respondent to petitioners satisfied requirements of principles of natural justice - petition dismissed. - Section 20 & Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Sections 11 & 12: [S.R. Bannurmath & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Penalty for disobedience - Disobedience of order passed by Karnataka Information Commission Maintainability of contempt petition - Held, Section 20 of RTI Act itself provides for remedy. Under Section 20 of RTI Act Commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to Rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. Thus Commission is empowered to enforce its own order. Remedy being available under RTI Act itself, contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. - It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'G. Venkatachala, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'Brahmarayappa, Adv.', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-01-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'H.L. Dattu, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">H.L. Dattu, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Petitioners are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 ('Regulations' for short).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Brief facts are:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">First petitioner is working as agent in the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B.S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent- Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent-Corporation one way or the other.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Second petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1986. He got married to one Smt. Sophia on 18-11-1993. After the marriage with Smt. Sophia, by his letter dated 25-9-1995, he had informed the respondent-Corporation about the marriage and also had requested the respondent-Corporation to continue his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It appears, by a letter dated 29-9-1995, the respondent-Corporation had accepted the explanation offered by the second petitioner by his letter dated 25-9-1995 and had condoned the act of non-disclosure of the marriage and further continued his agency.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By an order dated 25-9-1997 and 27-9-1997 respectively, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 16 of the Agency Regulations, had directed the petitioners not to canvas or procure life insurance business with immediate effect. Those notices were the subject-matters of writ petitions before this Court in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 connected with Writ Petition No. 29166 of 1997. This Court by its order dated 9-1-1998 was pleased to dispose of the writ petitions on a concession made by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Court was pleased to observe as under;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'3. Mr. Brahmarayappa, however, sought liberty to proceed against the petitioners for termination of their agencies in exercise of the powers vested in the Competent Authority under Regulation 16(1) of the aforementioned Regulations. This was opposed by Mr. Visveswara, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, according to whom the facts and the circumstances of the cases did not permit the Competent Authority exercising the power of termination on the same set of facts based on which the petitioners had been earlier notified and warned to be careful in future. He urged that the earlier proceedings leading to the issue of a warning to the petitioner for the same default as is now alleged against him should constitute a final determination of the controversy preventing a fresh look on the same at a subsequent stage. I am not however inclined to examine whether the previous proceedings initiated against the petitioner in W.P. No. 34352 of 1997 would constitute a valid bar against the respondent initiating fresh proceedings against the said petitioner. Interest of justice would, in my opinion, be sufficiently served if I direct that the petitioner in the said writ petition would be entitled to raise all such defences as may be otherwise open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose to them by way of termination of his licence in exercise of its power under Regulation 16(1).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. Similarly, the petitioner in the other writ petition shall also be entitled to raise all such defences as may be open to him against any action that the Competent Authority may propose in terms of the said regulation. Subject to what has been stated above and reserving liberty for the parties as indicated, these petitions are disposed off leaving the parties to bear their own costs'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. After disposal of the writ petitions, the respondent-Corporation through their letter dated 21-2-1998 and communication dated 9-3-1998, have terminated the services of the petitioners as agents of the respondent-Corporation by invoking Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter and the communications dated 21-2-1998 and 9-3-1998, petitioners are before this Court inter alia questioning the vires of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations, 1972.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contends before this Court that the respondent-Corporation without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners could not have terminated the service of the petitioners as agents of the Corporation. It is nextly contended by the learned Counsel that Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is opposed to the principles of natural justice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Sri Brahmarayappa, learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation has filed the statement of objections on behalf of the Corporation and at the time of hearing of the matters, learned Counsel has brought to my notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Lalitha Devi, the observations made by the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, in Smt. Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. B. P. Habbu v. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, and submits that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court and a Division Bench of this Court, petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought in these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Life Insurance Corporation of India has framed regulations defining the method of recruitment of agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the terms and conditions of their appointment and work in exercise of their powers under Section 49 of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>. In the dictionary clause of the regulations, the meaning of the expression 'agent' is defined. It means, a person, who has been appointed under Regulation 4 of the regulations and includes an absorbed agent. The appointment of an agent is made by the Corporation for the purpose of soliciting or procuring life insurance business for the Corporation. Regulation 16 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency for certain lapses. Regulation 17 of the Regulations provides for termination of agency by notice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has invoked Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations to terminate the agency of the petitioners by issuing one month's notice. Regulation 17 of the Regulations is as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'17. Termination of agency by notice.--(1) The appointment of an agent may be terminated by the Competent Authority at any time by giving one month's notice thereof in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) An agent may, by giving one month's notice in writing to the Competent Authority, discontinue his agency and after the expiry of the period of one month, his agency shall stand terminated'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.B.P. Habbu, supra, was pleased to state the relationship of the Corporation vis-a-vis the agent. In the said decision, the Court was pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is necessary to bear in mind that the appellant was not an employee of the Corporation but the relationship was that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. It is not in dispute that it is permissible for the principal that is the Corporation to terminate the agency in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would clearly demonstrate that the relationship between the Corporation and the petitioners is that of principal and the agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. The Corporation can terminate the agency of the petitioners in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. The Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Devi, supra, was pleased to state:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The respondent was an absorbed agent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Since, her husband was in service of the appellant, the respondent's agency was rightly terminated in accordance with Regulation 17(1) of the Agents Regulations, 1972. Before terminating the respondent's agency, the appellant had taken care to serve notice on her. We are of the opinion that the order of termination of respondent's agency did not suffer from any legal infirmity and the High Court committed error in quashing the same. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. That was a case where Smt. Lalitha Devi, who was an agent of the Corporation governed by the provisions of Regulations 1972, had married a person, who was in service of the respondent-Corporation. Her agency came to be terminated by the respondent-Corporation by invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations. The action of the respondent-Corporation has been upheld by the Apex Court in Lalitha Devi's case, supra. The Court has gone to the extent of saying that the order of termination passed by the respondent-Corporation does not suffer from any legal infirmity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Keeping in view the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and also the observations made by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, let me notice the fact situation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is not in dispute nor can it be disputed by the petitioners that they were appointed as agents of the respondent-Corporation in exercise of their powers under Regulation 4 of the Regulations. The relationship of the petitioners and the respondent-Corporation is that of a principal and agent. The terms and conditions of the agency are regulated by Regulations 1972. Their agency can be terminated by the respondent-Corporation in accordance with Regulations 13 to 17 of the Regulations. These petitioners, who were agents of the respondent-Corporation, were married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation. This action of the petitioners is contrary to the terms and conditions of the statutory regulations. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations have terminated the services of the petitioners by giving one month's notice in writing. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Smt. Lalitha Devi's case, supra, I cannot take exception to the action of the respondent-Corporation in invoking the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations 1972 to terminate the agencies of the petitioners, since as agents they have got married to regular employees of the respondent-Corporation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations authorises the Competent Authority to terminate the agency by giving one month's notice. Since petitioners are not employees of the respondent-Corporation, and since they are only the agents of the Corporation, in my opinion, one month's notice in writing given by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioners would satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I cannot accede to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioners that the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of the Regulations is either arbitrary or violative of any other constitutional provisions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. In view of the above, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, writ petitions are rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR2002Kant113; ILR2002KAR1400; 2002(2)KarLJ213', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'The Managing Director, L.i.C. of India, Mumbai and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '371993' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 49, Regulations 13, Regulations 13 to 17, the Agents Regulations, Regulations 13 to 17
ORG: Dattu, the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation', the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, Smt, B.S. Girija, Corporation, Smt, Smt, Court, Court, Court, the Competent Authority under Regulation, the Competent Authority, W.P. No, the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, Court, Learned Counsel, Court, Corporation, Counsel that Regulation 17(1, Regulations, Corporation, Counsel, the Apex Court, Life Insurance Corporation of, the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, Court, Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Apex Court, Court, The Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, Corporation, Regulations, the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority, Court, Habbu, Corporation, Court, under:'It, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, the Division Bench, Court, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, The Apex Court, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Smt, Corporation, the Apex Court, Court, the Division Bench, Court, the Apex Court, Regulations, the Apex Court, the Competent Authority, Corporation, Regulations, Court
NORP: J.1
PRODUCT: Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1, Regulation 17(1
DATE: 1972, the year 1983, 16-4-1992, the year 1986, 18-11-1993, 29166 of 1997, 1997, 1972, 1956, one month's, one month's, one month's, the period of one month, 1972, 1972, 1972, one month's, 1972, one month's, one month's
ORDINAL: First, first, Second, second
CARDINAL: one, one, one, 25, 29, 25, 25, 27, 3, 4., 6, 21, 9-3-1998, 21, 9-3-1998, 1972.7, 16, 17, 17, 2, 11, 17(1
EVENT: Regulation 16, Regulation 4, Regulation 4
TIME: 9-1-1998
PERSON: Brahmarayappa, Visveswara, justice.8, Sri Brahmarayappa, Lalitha Devi, Jaswanti Negi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, S. B. P. Habbu, notice.10, Lalitha Devi, Lalitha Devi, Lalitha Devi's, Lalitha Devi's, Lalitha Devi's
WORK_OF_ART: Regulations
GPE: Counsel, Smt, Smt, Smt