Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1977Mad72
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 2703 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein. Most of the facts are not in controversy. One Mr. Srinivasa Rao was an insurance agent who died issueless on 8-6-1966. The second respondent herein is his widow. The appellant and the third and fourth respondents are said to be his brothers, and the fifth respondent is said to be his sister. At the time of his death, his mother, by name, Uma Bai, also survived, but she died on 29-6-1968. The said Srinivasa Rao had married the second respondent herein under the Special Marriage Act, and, accordingly, under Section 33(b) of the Indian Succession Act, on the death of the said Srinivasa Rao, the second respondent herein being his widow would be entitled to a half share, and the appellant and respondent 3 to 5 would be entitled to the remaining half share in the estate of Srinivasa Rao. It is adverted in the plaint that after the death of Srinivasa Rao, the second respondent took ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1995]215ITR553(Mad)
ORDER--Not dealt by Tribunal.Ratio & Held :The question of limitation which the assessee had raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has failed to deal with it must be deemed to have been dealt with by it and is, therefore, one arising out of its order and can be considered by the High Court.Case Law Analysis :CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC) applied. Application :Also to current assessment years. A. Y. :1973-74 and 1974-75Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Words and phrases--ASSESSMENT--For computation of period of limitation.Ratio :The meaning of `assessment' for the purpose of computation of period of limitation, depends upon the type of assessment made.Held :From the scheme of the law for computing the period of limitation, the meaning of assessment will be one where after assessment, a notice of demand is served upon the assessee under section 143(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act and another in a case falling under section 144, clause (b) of sub-section (2) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1968)2MLJ562
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein, under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, for a decree of divorce, on the ground that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty.2. The appellant herein was first appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1943 at Poona and later was transferred to the Local Audit Office at Bombay. At the time of the petition, he was employed in the Military Accounts Department, Government of India, as an auditor in the Local Audit, Defence Accounts Department. While the appellant was working at Bombay, on 2nd April, 1953 the marriage between the appellant who hails from Madras, and the respondent who hails from Bengal, was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act (III of 1872), since repealed by Act XLIII of 1954, and the marriage was registered at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Bombay, on that date. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad24
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The appellants in the above appeals are employees under the Life Insurance Corporation of India and they have appealed from the judgment of Rajagopalan, J. rejecting their applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent (Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Zonal Manager) to reinstate them to the same office with all rights and privileges attached thereto respectively held by them in the various insurance units before their integration into the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The appellants claim that they had been appointed by the various business insurance companies prior to their integration with the Insurance Corporation of India, as administrative and supervisory officers but that after the Corporation came into being they were demoted to the position of field officers contrary to the statutory guarantee contained in Section 11(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1986)ILLJ272Mad
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. These writ petitions raise common questions relating to the interpretation of Regn. 39(3) of the (Staff) Regulations, 1960 framed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Common questions are, as to whether in a disciplinary enquiry it is open to the Life Insurance Corporation, under Regn. 39(3), to appoint the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, to enquire into the misconduct alleged against an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation and further whether in such an enquiry a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Branch, can be appointed as the presenting officer. 2. The questions raised mainly relate to the interpretation of Regn. 39(3). Since we are not concerned with the merits of the charges in respect of which departmental proceedings against the petitioners in all the above four petitions are being taken, only such facts as are necessary for appreciating the contentions raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1993Mad150
ORDER1. The prayer in the above writ petition is as follows:'.....to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the respondent in Proceedings No. MD/Sect1/ SDM dated 24-3-1992, quash the same and direct the respondent to pay the renewal and other commissions to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders.....'2. The petitioner took up an Agency with the Life Insurance Corportion of India in May, 1983. The payment and termination of the services of LIC Agents are governed by statutory Rules which have been framed under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 and these Rules are known as the Life Insurance Corportion of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972. According to the petitioner ever since he was appointed as an Agent of the Life Insurance Corportion, he has done exceedingly well. He had also the unique distinction of being the only Agent to get the IMM -- Campa Cola -- Marketing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]242ITR563(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The common question that arises for our consideration in all these tax cases is as to whether the incentive bonus and the additional conveyance allowance paid to the Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India form part of their salary and are liable to be assessed to tax as salary. 2. This court in the case of CIT v. E. A. Rajendran : [1999]235ITR514(Mad) , has held that in the absence of any notification issued by the Central Government under Section 10(14)(i) granting exemption the incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance are liable to be assessed to tax as salary. This court also held that such bonus and the additional allowance are part of the salary of the employee having regard to the terms used in Sections 16 and 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. A view similar to the one taken by this court has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. A. Choudary v. CIT : [1990]183ITR29(AP) , by the Rajasthan High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1030Mad; (1992)IIMLJ573
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. I. Introduction : By an order of reference dated April 23, 1992, a Division Bench referred seven of the above writ petitions to a larger Bench. The Honourable the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for hearing the cases. The matters were listed for orders on April 30, 1992 and with the consent of counsel, we fixed the date of hearing as June 22, 1992. At the instance of counsel appearing in the other writ petitions, the Honourable the Chief Justice directed those matters also to be posted before us as the questions involved are common. When the matters were heard, 18 writ petitions were posted in all for hearing. In the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that several writ petitions had been filed for similar reliefs by persons in similar position after the Division Bench heard the matters and reserved orders and before it made the order of reference. Counsel had no objection to our passing orders on those writ petitions too, as no further argument was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad484
Ramaswami, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of our learned brother Basheer Ahmad Sayeed, J. in C. C. C. Appeal No. 54 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Principal City Civil Judge of Madras in O. S. No. 1568 of 1950.(2) The facts arising for consideration lie within a brief compass and have been established beyond doubt. The plaintiff Maheswari is the wife of the deceased Palanivel Nadar. Palanivel Nadar has a brother-in-law by name C. M. Thyagarajan. This Thyagarajan was the agent of the defendant insurance company, the All India General Insurance Company Limited. Palanival Nadar, as appears from the evidence, was a heavy drinker and afflicted with syphilis. On 2-1-1948 the deceased Palanivel Nadar took out a life assurance policy bearing No. 11096 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Palanivel Nadar died on 13-6-1948 surviving him the plaintiff Maheswari and two minor children. The claim of Maheswari was disputed by the defendant company.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ1025Mad
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated April 8, 1983 terminating the services of the petitioner as probationary Development Officer.2. The 3rd respondent appointed the petitioner as an apprentice Development Officer under Life Insurance Corporation of India by the order dated January 21, 1982. The petitioner was first taken as apprentice for a period of one year commencing from February 1, 1982 and he was given training at Development Officer's Training Centre at Thanjavur. The petitioner underwent the said training for two months from February 1, 1982 to March 31, 1982. On completion of the theoretical training course at Thanjavur, the petitioner was posted to Dharmapuri Branch of the L.I.C. to undergo administration training. This training lasted one month. After the administration training was over, the petitioner was posted for field training under Dharmapuri branch with headquarters at...
Tag this Judgment!