Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC678; [1961(2)FLR594]; (1961)IILLJ94SC
..... singh, for it is not disputed that industrial tribunals used to give retrenchment compensation even before section 25-f was enacted and that section merely standardised the practice which was generally prevalent. in the circumstances, the order as to payment of one month's average salary as retrenchment compensation to iqbal singh must stand. however, the other part of the order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1166; 1962(0)BLJR499; (1962)ILLJ294SC; [1962]Supp3SCR369
..... unconstitutional. 22. we have rejected the board contention that persons in the service of government form a class apart to whom the rights guaranteed by part iii do not, in general, apply. by accepting the contention that the freedoms guaranteed by part iii and in particular those in art. 19(a)(1) apply to the servants of government we should not ..... cls. (5) and (6) under which restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by sub-cls. (d) and (g) may be imposed if reasonable in the interest of the general public. 13. in this connection he laid stress on the fact that special provision had been made in regard to service under the state in some of the articles in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1911; [1963]33CompCas529(SC); [1964]2SCR182
..... on no class of insurance business other than life insurance business, if, in addition to life insurance business, he carries on only capital redemption business or annuity certain business or both; and the expression 'business appertaining to his life insurance business' in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) shall be construed accordingly; x x x x' 6. the appellant company was admittedly a composite insurer because it carried on general insurance business in addition to the ..... tribunal, nagpur, dated december 30, 1959, and may 17, 1960. the national insurance co. ltd. is the appellant and the life insurance corporation of india the respondent. 2. the life insurance corporation act, 1956, (31 of 1956) was passed to provide for the nationalisation of life insurance business in india by transferring all such business to a corporation to be established for the purpose and to provide .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC892; [1964]5SCR125
..... out respectively in annexures a to c to the statement of claim. 3. issue 6(a). whether the petitioner is entitled to the unpaid dividends attributable and pertaining to the general insurance business of the petitioner as claimed in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim. issue 7(a). whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interest on the amount of compensation. issue ..... . prior to december 1957, its registered office was at ajmer, but now it is in calcutta. it was a composite insurer carrying on life insurance and general insurance business. the act was passed to provide for the nationalization of life insurance business in india by transferring all such business to a corporation established for the purpose. the act came into force on july 1, 1956. on september 1 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC847; [1964(8)FLR158]; (1964)ILLJ442SC; [1964]5SCR528
..... mukherjee before the calcutta high court, and the learned solicitor-general contends that the high court was in error in upholding mr. mukherjee's plea. 6. the history of the nationalisation of the life insurance business in this country is well-known. on the 19th january, 1956, the life insurance (emergency provisions) ordinance (no. 1 of 1956) was ..... promulgated by the president for the purpose of taking over, in the public interest, the management of the life insurance business, pending nationalisation of such business. in due course, act no. 9 of 1956 was passed which took the place of the original ordinance and it came into effect on the ..... could be utilised in any other capacity in the corporation, and if yes, on what remuneration 19. the learned solicitor-general has contended that when the corporation took over the controlled business of insurers in this country on the appointed day, it was found that a large number of employees in the category of field .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC817; [1969]1SCR910
..... were not duly served and dismissed the suits. the plaintiff filed two appeals. before the high court the union of india conceded that the notices were duly served on the general manager, southern railway and the plaintiff elected to ask for a decree against the southern railway only. the high court held that the southern railway to which the goods were ..... extent as they would have applied if the animals or goods had been carried over only one railway administration.'14. it is to be observed that section 72 defines the general responsibility of a railway administration as a carrier of goods. sections 73, 74a, 74b, 74c, 74d, and 75 contain special provisions limiting the ..... general responsibility as defined in section 72. the effect of section 74e is that in the case of goods booked through over the railways of two or more administrations the consignor .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1969)3SCC49; [1970]2SCR538
..... paid as and when collected. in national insurance co. ltd., calcutta v. life insurance corporation of india [1963] supp.2 s.c.r.971 the appellant carried on life insurance business in addition to other insurance business. on the passing of the life insurance corporation act, 1956, which was intended to nationalise all life insurance business, 'its controlled business' stood vested in the life insurance corporation of india from the appointed date ..... collect the said amounts together with interest. the amounts were collected but no payment was made to the appellants. on the language of section 55 as well as under the general principles of law, it is submitted, the appellants should have been held to be entitled to the payment of interest on the amounts withheld by the government. section 55(1 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC870; (1969)3SCC349; [1970]3SCR147; [1970]25STC528(SC)
..... permit require a security deposit and a standing deposit from the registered exporter. the security may be in cash or by a guarantee from a bank or life insurance corporation of india. it is provided that the permit is liable to be withdrawn and cancelled by the chief coffee marketing officer if it is found that the ..... made by the exporter for the purpose of exporting them to implement orders already received from a foreign buyer or expected to be received subsequently in the course of business was not within the protection of clause (1)(b).44. in the course of discussion, apart from referring to a passage from the earlier judgment in which the ..... far as it imposes, or prevent the state from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred, either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe. the main clause of the article recognises the institution of private property with all the concomitants of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2320; (1970)2SCC841; [1971]2SCR163
Bhargava, J.1. The appellant Hatti was declared a Bhumidar of some land belonging to the respondent, Sunder Singh, under Section 13 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act No. 8 of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent then brought a suit in the Civil Court claiming three reliefs. The first relief claimed was for a declaration that the declaration of Bhumidari issued in the name of the appellant with respect to the land in dispute was wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction, ultra vires, void and ineffective against the respondent. The second relief was that the respondent be declared entitled to Bhumidari rights under Section 11 of the Act; and the third relief was for possession of the land. The suit was brought on the allegation that the respondent was the owner of the land, while the appellant had no rights in it. The land along with some other land was on Mustrajri with one Sultan Singh for a period of 20 years ending in June, 1952, and the appellant had been admitted as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC342; [1972]1SCR854
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Civil Appeals Nos. 1956-57 of 1969 by certificates have become infructuous as the certificates on the strength of which those appeals were brought were not properly issued. To get over that difficulty, the Commissioner of Income-tax applied for and obtained special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland. The appeals filed on the basis of the special leave granted are Civil Appeals Nos. 1426 and 1427 of 1971. At present we are only concerned with those appeals.2. The judgment under appeal is one rendered in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (to be hereinafter called the Act). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal after stating the case referred the following six questions for the opinion of the High Court :1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and upon a true interpretation of the provisions of the Second proviso to Section 34(3), the assessment for the year 1955-56 on the applican...
Tag this Judgment!