General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act 1972 Section 24 Acquiring Companies To Have The Exclusive Privilege Of Carrying On General Insurance Business - Judgment Search Results

The Neptune Assurance Co. Ltd., and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1973SC602; [1973]43CompCas469(SC); (1973)1SCC310; [1973]2SCR940

of general insurance business pending nationalisation of such business. By general insurance business is meant under the Act fire, marine or application of the Controller under s. 3 (5D) of the Insurance Act. An insurance company whose registration under the Insurance Act to as the Insurance Act who carries on general insurance business in India, and includes an insurer whose registration under the Act is "to protect the interest of the policy-holders pending nationalisation of the general insurance business." The interpretation suggested by the being voluntarily wound up under the provisions of the Insurance Act. It is for the legislature to legislate as to the as 'Well as the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Amendment Act 1972 to the petitioner company. The petitioners are three in number, the words "insurer" as well as "insurance company". The appropriate section in each instance will indicate as to why the Act any manner any money forming part of such assets, to acquire any immovable property out of any moneys forming part of to voluntary winding up and partial winding up of insurance companies indicate the difference between the concepts of voluntary winding up used in some sections to mean not only a person carrying on an insu- rance but also one who intends to

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mohanlal Aggarwal

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 2004ACJ1657

to so function under the Act, 'as to secure that general insurance business is developed to the best advantage of the also implied in the contract of insurance under which the insurance cover was stipulated to be continued on payment of the the premium would turn to be the profit of the business in case no damage occurs.11. The learned counsel appearing for January 1994, felt that the Insurance Regulatory Apparatus should be activated even in the present set up of nationalized insurance sector was removed. By Section 10A inserted in the Act of 1972, by General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Amendment Act, 2002, all the Tariff Advisory Committee under Clause (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 14. Under Section 26, the Authority is empowered to make [Lord Russel of Killowen in Provincial V. Morgan [1933] A.C. 240].34. In the context of the renewal clause 5.9 of the Development Authority Act, 1999 (I.R.D.A.) and the GIC and the acquiring companies were, thereafter to carry on general insurance business in Judge rejected the contention raised on behalf of the insurance companies that they cannot be compelled to renew the policy and which was inserted with effect from 19th April 2000, the exclusive privilege of the GIC and the acquiring companies, of carrying day, the G.I.C. and the acquiring companies had the exclusive privilege of carrying on general insurance business in India. However, by GIC was formed for the purpose of superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. As soon as the

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1963SC1911; [1963]33CompCas529(SC); [1964]2SCR182

Company was admittedly a composite insurer because it carried on general insurance business in addition to the businesses which fell within sub-clause (b) of clause (9) of section 2 of the Insurance Act and carrying on life insurance business - (a) all to include in addition to life business the capital redemption business or annuity certain business or both; but where an insurer 1956, (31 of 1956) was passed to provide for the nationalisation of life insurance business in India by transferring all such Corporation of India the respondent. 2. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, (31 of 1956) was passed to provide for the became the 'appointed day' for the purposes of the Act. Section 7(1) of the Act then enjoined that on the appointed insurance business of the National Insurance Co. Ltd., among other companies, and the two broad questions on which the present dispute expression 'Composite insurer' was defined to mean : 'An insurer carrying on in addition to controlled business any other kind of

Kishan Prakash Sharma and ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2001SC1493; JT2001(3)SC554; 2001(2)SCALE586; (2001)5SCC212; 2001(2)SCT656(SC); (2001)2UPLBEC1232

sub-section (6) of that section before the commencement of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Ordinance, 1984 shall be, and shall for the acquisition and transfer to shares in the Indian insurance companies and undertakings of other insurers in order to serve the common detriment, for the regulation and control of such business and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said various challenges and rejected each one of them. Though the nationalisation process commenced some time in 1973 the process of merger any event the retrospective effect given to the 1985 Amendment Act with effect from 2.1.1973 is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 1977 are illegal being ultra vires the Nationalisation Act of 1972 for reasons given in Ajay Kumar Banerjee's case [supra]. 2. as aforesaid had been framed or made, under the said section 17A: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to, officers and other employees of the Corporation or of any acquiring company, otherwise than in relation to, or in connection with, conditions of service of different categories of employees of merged companies. 15. The second amendment to the scheme was effected in the Petitioners are subjected to hostile discrimination by reason of exclusion of the GIC employees from the Industrial Disputes Act being in this direction was to reduce the number of companies carrying on the general insurance business and decided to retain four

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gaj ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2008ACJ2399; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)928; (2008)3CALLT1(SC); (2008)3GLR2356(SC); (2008)5MLJ1006(SC); (2008)151PLR644; 2008(7)SCALE377; (2008)10SCC404; 2008AIRSCW7532; AIR2009SC446; 2008AIRSCW7532

shall so function under this Act as to secure that general insurance business is developed to the best advantage of the Company Limited;(b) the New India Assurance Company Limited;(c) the Oriental Insurance Company Limited;(d) the United India Insurance Company Limited,and vested in any other law or when the insurer has stopped doing business.[6] The government insurance companies continue to be 'State' within the each or all of them, jointly or severally, under the Act and/or the insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.17. Indisputably fidei.STATUTORY PROVISIONS, GUIDELINES ETC.14. Sections 10A, 19(2) and 19(3) of 1972 Act, which are relevant for our purpose, read as under:10-A. (2) of Section 114A of the 1938 Act read with Sections 14 and 26 of the 1999 Act, the Authority made Act, 1999. By the 1999 Act the Parliament inserted Section 24A in the 1972 Act directing cessation of the exclusive privilege stand transferred to the Central Government.Section 19 - Functions of acquiring companies(1) ...(2) Each acquiring company shall so function under this and illegal, and it is directed that the respondents insurance companies will renew their respective policies from the date on which Section 24A in the 1972 Act directing cessation of the exclusive privilege of the Corporation and the acquiring companies in relation 24A in the 1972 Act directing cessation of the exclusive privilege of the Corporation and the acquiring companies in relation thereto. two subsidiary insurance companies of General Insurance Corporation of India, carrying on the insurance business in terms of the 1972 Act.

Shri Mukut Lal Duggal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006ACJ1576; 117(2004)DLT74; 2005(82)DRJ70; (2005)141PLR10

premium on medical insurance policies taken by them with the General Insurance Corporation of India, was announced. Pursuant to that, a role over subsidiaries was ended. (source : Website of General Insurance Corporation of India - Http:/www.glcofindia.org/about - us html).14.3 In this such tendencies that maybe disguised under a refined argument of business or commercial prudence.22. It is, thereforee, clear to us that (GIC) was formed in pursuance of Section 9(1) of the Act of 1972, and was incorporated on 22nd November 1972 under was removed. By Section 10A inserted in the Act of 1972, by General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Amendment Act, 2002 all the burden of ill-health. Such disproportionate economic burden on the poor sections demands State intervention to ensure that private health insurance is insurance, ending their monopoly by virtue of insertion of Section 24A in the Act of 1972, and they cannot be arbitrarily while considering the Mediclaim insurance policy, holding that these Insurance Companies were 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, in terms, This Act also introduced amendments to Act of 1972, the exclusive privilege of the GIC and its subsidiaries carrying on general policy to the effect that the insurer has a contractual privilege to refuse to renew even when the insured is paying GIC was formed for the purpose of superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. As soon as the

Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [1966]60ITR496(SC)

under the heads 'Income from property' as far as a general insurance business is concerned. The effect of section 10(7) is terms : 'The profits and gains of any business of insurance other than of insurance shall be taken to be the assessment of the profits and gains of a life insurance business under rule 2(b) of the Schedule to the Indian Income-tax under rule 2(b) of the Schedule to the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Privy Council observed : 'The case of Inland, expenditure other than expenditure which may under the provisions of section 10 of this Act by allowed for in computing the basis, though the special basis is different for life insurance companies and companies carrying on general insurance business. In the case special basis is different for life insurance companies and companies carrying on general insurance business. In the case of life insurance

Biman Krishna Bose Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas14(SC); JT2001(6)SC125; 2001(4)SCALE675; (2001)6SCC477; 2002(1)LC93(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2470

acquiring companies were given the exclusive privilege to carry on general insurance business in India. Under Section 3(1) of the Act, sector has a right and privilege to carry on general insurance business in India and to that extent, the acquiring companies has a right and privilege to carry on general insurance business in India and to that extent, the acquiring companies have such acquiring company. A perusal of the provisions of the Act makes it evident that it is only the acquiring companies Under Section 9 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 ('the Act'), General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) was set be set aside. We find substance in the argument.3. Under Section 9 of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 ('the the business of general insurance in the country. Under Section 24 of the Act, the acquiring companies were given the exclusive general insurance business in India and to that extent, the acquiring companies have a monopoly over such business. In such a Act makes it evident that it is only the acquiring companies which have exclusive privilege of carrying on the general insurance of the original policy. Where an insurance company which has exclusive privilege to carry on insurance business has refused to renew that it is only the acquiring companies which have exclusive privilege of carrying on the general insurance business in India, under is only the acquiring companies which have exclusive privilege of carrying on the general insurance business in India, under the supervision

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the General Insurance ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 1998ACJ900; AIR1998Ker184

there has been a sudden change of stand by the General Insurance Corporation of India as well as the National Insurance consented and to receive the amount, so that the third-party insurance coverage will come into force with effect from 29-7-1989. But, for the purpose of superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. After the nationalisation, there are only four and carrying on the business of general insurance. After the nationalisation, there are only four Insurance companies, viz., The Oriental Insurance Claims Tribunals dealing with the accident cases. The Motor Vehicles Act also has made it compulsory for the vehicles which ply has been nationalised by the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Section 2 of the Act says that the Act was (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Under Section 4 of the Act, on the appointed day, all the that:'................in case the entire fleet is proposed to us, oh acquiring sufficient claim statistics we shall take up the matter with existing premium. The General Insurance Corporation of India and its companies are 'States' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the State of Kerala itself there are nearly twenty exclusive Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals dealing with the accident cases. The Corporation of India' for the purpose of superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. After the nationalisation, there

Arun Oswal Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Court: Delhi

(ii) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, if eligible; (iii) Leave encashment state that the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Kirpal Singh (supra) decides the of powers conferred under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, framing a scheme by amending the General Insurance conferred under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, framing a scheme by amending the General Insurance (Rationalization of as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1975 (39 of 1972) or gratuity payable under the principal Scheme, as the case on January 2, 2003 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, framing a