Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi45
V.D. Misra, J. (1) These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment of Tatachari J., dismissing two writ petitions, filed by the appellant and Shrimati Maya Devi Chopra. This judgment will govern both the appeals. (2) Fact giving rise to the writ petitions may be briefly noted : Land comprising khasra No. 207 measuring two bighas and seven biswas, khasra No. 569/297 measuring four bighas ten bids was and khasra No. 570/297 measuring one bigha twelve biswas, situated in Kharera, District Delhi, was evacuee property. The Central Government issued a notification under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act No. 44 of 1954. It was duly auctioned by the Managing Officer on 4-7-1960 and 22-2-1961. Krishna Kumar Chopra and Shrimati Maya Devi Chopra, who were displaced persons, succeeded in buying the land. Krishan Kumar Chopra bought the land comprising khasra Nos. 207 and 569/297 while Maya Devi Chopra bought land comprising khasra No. 570/297....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)1
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition who are 32 in number have done their JBT/ETE Course from District Institute of Education and Training (for short 'DIET'). It is the case of the petitioners that DIET was specially opened by the respondent-MCD to train and prepare the persons with Specialised Education Teachers for the Primary/Elementary Schools being run by MCD. It was the Policy of the respondent that all the students who qualified from DIETS would be absorbed as Primary School Teachers before the placements could be offered to candidated with basic for higher qualifications i.e. B.Ed., M.Ed. etc. The petitioners have done two years ETE Diploma course. They joined the course in 1996. Although in normal course they would have completed this course in the year 1998. However, in one or more papers, these petitioners could not qualify and, thereforee, they appeared in supplementary examination conducted later on and qualified for Diploma Course in January, 1999. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi180; [1974]44CompCas190(Delhi)
1. The plaintiff (Daulat Ram) is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,000/- on the insurance policy which has been taken by Smt. Chawli Devi being her adopted son he was the nominee of the policy. the policy was effective from 13-9-1955 in respect of which it is stated. that the respect of which it is stated. that the premiums due until the death of Smt Chawli Devi on 30-9-1956. had been paid.2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Commercial Sub Judge 1st Class. Delhi on 12-6-1961 on the grounds s that she had not insurable interest and that she ahd stated in the proposal the was literate and did not observe pardah, which statement had been proved to be incorrect. The suit was resisted by the Life Insurance Corporation. The successor- in interest of the Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd., also on the ground that she was suffering from diabetes which fact she had not disclosed the finding on this question of fact was in the favor of the plaintiff.3. The most important question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IVAD(Delhi)821; [1999]96CompCas974(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT836
Dr. M.K. Sharma J. 1. A very important and vital question has been raised in these petitions which requires the immediate attention of this court. The question raised is as to whether on the coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, in short the 'Debt Recovery Act', setting up the Debt Recovery Tribunal, 'the Tribunal' in short, for adjudicating upon the claims of the banks and financial institutions, the jurisdiction of the company court under sub-section (1) of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, to grant or refuse leave of any suit or legal proceedings and under sub-section (3) of section 446 of the Companies Act to transfer the suits or any proceedings to the company court has been taken away and that the said banks and the financial institutions need not apply for such leave either for filing new claims or proceeding with a pending claim, although the company has gone into liquidation and has been wound up by the company cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ501Del
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court can order the enforcement of certain public law rights (as distinguished from private law rights, e.g., rights based on contracts). Can such a right arise out of an administrative scheme or instructions (as distinguished from 'law' or orders having the force of law) issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (as contrasted with the Government) with respect to a class of its employees Can this Court review administrative action by the Chairman of the Corporation withdrawing such scheme or instructions without authority These would appear to be the ultimate issues arising in this writ petition in the back-ground of the following facts and law.2. The Corporation (respondent 1) was established by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to carry on the business of life insurance as a monopoly on business principles (Section 6). It can act itself Section 4 or through committees Section 19. It has power to appoint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The facts in these four writ petitions are more or less similar and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.2. Each of these Petitioners was an agent with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), the Respondent herein. By separate orders dated 24th November 2005, the agency of each of the Petitioners was terminated and forfeiture of renewal commission was also ordered in terms of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 [hereinafter the 'Agents Rules'].3. Each of the Petitioners preferred an appeal to the Zonal Manager against the terminations and each of the appeals was rejected by separate orders dated 30th May 2006. The orders dated 24th November 2005, terminating the agency and the orders dated 30th May 2006 dismissing the appeal have been challenged by each of them by way of the present writ petitions. They were agents attached to Branch Unit 11-C.4. The Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10426 of 2006, Mr. P.K. Singh, was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004(72)DRJ278; 2004(2)SLJ371(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule has already been issued in the writ petition on 5th April, 1994.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 29th January, 1993, passed in I.D. No. 39 of 1990 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the 'CGIT') by which the following industrial dispute was adjudicated upon by the CGIT:-'Whether the action of the management of L.I.C. of India in terminating the services of Shri S.K. Verma, Ex-Development Officer, is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'4. There is long pending litigation between the parties. The respondent No. 3 had joined the services of the petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) on 1st February, 1962 and his services were terminated on 8th February, 1969, leading to a challenge thereto which led to an Order of the CGIT dated 10th February, 1984, directing the reinstatement of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : I(2003)BC270; [2003]114CompCas764(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT154; 2003(66)DRJ24; [2003]42SCL69(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Two questions arise for consideration. Firstly, whether the Power of Attorney executed in favor of the person who has signed the petition conforms with the requirements of law and if found not to be so, what are the proper and appropriate orders that should be passed. Secondly, whether the Company Court should entertain a winding-up petition despite the fact that the petitioning creditor has already instituted proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RDB Act').(A) Power of Attorney issue.2. In this context, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the document had not been sufficiently stamped. It has, however, been shown that the Power of Attorney in favor of Mr. David A. Tait has been adjudicated for payment of Stamp Duty of Rs. 110/- which has been deposited in the office of the Collector of Stamps, New Delhi. The objection, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... life insurance corporation act, 1956 (for short, the lic act ), vide judgment and order dated 31st march, 2016, held that the board resolution dated 24th november, 2001 to amend the lic of india (employees) pension rules, 1955 (pension rules for short), for upgrading the basic pension to all india consumer price index of 1740 point and 100 per cent dearness allowance neutralization thereon in respect of retirees prior to 1st august, 1997 was non est and would not confer any legal right. on perusal of section 48 of the lic act ..... rank were entitled to the same pension irrespective of the date of retirement. the contention was rejected observing that the basic pension is computed on the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months of service. the said rule is applicable to all pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement. this definition of emoluments in force at the time of retirement of the employees did not undergo a change. the same formula applies to the entire class of retirees, irrespective of the date of ..... have the right to adequate means of livelihood. the directive principles though not conferring a legal right require and remind the state of its duty and obligation to provide means of adequate pension and other terminal benefits. article 43 of the constitution refers to living wage . the concept of "universal basic income" and its recognition as a legal right is under debate and consideration.65. the question of adequacy or the amount of pension should also take .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi15; 1974RLR145
ORDER1. One Shiv Lal Chopra insured his life with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and took out three Policies Particulars whereof are as under:Policy No, Date Place Amount 26988057 Dec. 1966 Kanpur 20,000,00 27061288 May 1967 Kanpur 20,000,00 8108987 Dec. 1967 Varanasi 25,000,002. Shiv Lal died on September 20, 1968 at Sopar in Bikar. His widow demanded the insurance money from the Life Insurance Corporation. The Life Insurance Corporation by their three letters dated February 20. 1970, repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on the around that Shiv Lal was suffering from heart ailment and consulted medical men and took treatment from them and did not disclose these facts in his statement and instead wave false answers. This was their reply with regard to two policies dated May, 1967 and December, 1967 which were taken at Kanpur and Varanasi. As regards the third policy taken out in December, 1966 from Kanpur the Corporation said that nothing was payable as Policy had lapsed by n...
Tag this Judgment!