Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1988)IILLJ495Cal
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. from the judgment of PC. Borooah, J. delivered on August 25th, 1982, pursuant to the application made by Amalendu Gupta and others. The said Amalendu Gupta and Ors. made an application under Article 226 of Constitution of India inter alia praying that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued, directing Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter also referred to for the sake of brevity as 'LIC') to cancel the circulars and/or orders dated 16th April 1981 and 23rd April 1981 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC Calcutta Divisional Office. The said Amalendu Gupta and Ors. (hereinafter also referred to as 'employees') also prayed that the LIC be directed to refund and/or restore 14 days' wages and allowances deducted by the LIC from the April, 1981 salaries of the Class III and Class IV employees of the LIC. A rule was issued pursuant to the said application and affidavits were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1982)IILLJ332Cal
P.C. Borooah, J.1. By a bipartite settlement dated 24-1-74 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act; made by and between the Management of the respondent No. 1 and the All India Insurance Employees' Association, representing Class III and Class IV employees of the said respondent, the respondent No. 1 was to pay annual cash bonus, not being profit sharing bonus, to their Class III and Class IV employees at the rate of 15% of their annual wages inclusive of all allowance. A copy of the settlement has been annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'A'.2. The respondent No. 1 not having paid the annual cash bonus in terms of the settlement, the Class III and Class IV employees of the respondent-Corporation came before this Hon'ble Court and filed Writ petition through some of their representative employees and the All India Insurance Employees' Association and obtained a Rule, being Matter No. 371 of 1976. By a judgment delivere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1968Cal146
..... for procuring business.(1) no person shall, after the expiry of six months from the commencement of this act, pay or contract to pay any remuneration or reward whether by way of commission or otherwise for soliciting or procuring insurance business in india to any person except an insurance agent or a principal, chief or special agent.' this section has been made applicable to the life insurance corporation by g. s. r. 734 dated 23rd of august 1958 read with section 43(2) of the life insurance corporation act. 1956. section 42 of the insurance act provides for the licensing of insurance agents the relevant provision is as follows:'(1) the controller or an officer authorised by him in this behalf ..... shall, in the prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed fee which shall not be more than ten rupees issue to any person making an application in the prescribed manner a licence to act as an insurance agent for the purpose of soliciting or procuring insurance business....' 8. a licence can, not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1978Cal221
ORDERManjula Bose, J. 1. One Radheshyam Roy, since deceased instituted this suit on Sept. 19, 1956 against the defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,000/- alleged to be due from Peerless Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company). 2. The case in the plaint is that the original plaintiff was the Managing Director of the said Insurance Company and that on account of paucity of funds he had not drawn his remuneration as Managing Director from Jan. 1943 till Dec. 1947. It is alleged that the Insurance Company by its resolution dated July 2, 1948 agreed and/or promised as follows: 'Resolved unanimously that the sum of Rs. 26,000/-, being the amount of remuneration foregone by the Managing Director Mr. R. Roy up to Dec., 1947, be paid to him in a lump sum or in one or more instalments in one or more years as and when the company is in a position to do so'. 3. It is further alleged that the Life Insurance Corporation of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ519Cal
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant, Indian Airlines Corporation, arises out or a suit brought by one of their dismissed employees for a declaration that the order of dismissal was invalid, void and ineffective and that his services under the defendant should be deemed to be still subsisting. The plaintiff succeeded in both Court a below. The foots material for the purpose of this appeal are as follows.2. The plaintiff was appointed originally by the Airways (India), Ltd., as a motor-driver on permanent basis at Calcutta in 1951 and worked as such until some time in August 1953 when the undertakings of certain existing sir companies including the Airways (India), Ltd., were taken over by the defendant-Corporation. The paid Corporation was brought into existence by the Air Corporations Act, 1953, referred to hereinafter as the Act, to provide for the establishment of Air Corporations, to facilitate the acquisition by the Air Corporations of undertakings belonging to cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ415Cal
R.M. Dutta, J.1. The Rule nisi herein was directed against the Union of India and the different authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (hereinafter called the laid Corporation), calling upon them to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus and a writ in the nature of prohibition should not be issued against them, commanding the said respondents and each of them to act according to law, by directing the respondents to act is accordance with a settlement, dated January 24, 1974 read with an administrative instruction, dated March 29, 1974; by re-calling, rescinding and/or canceling the impugned circulars, dated September 26, 1975, February 7, 1976 and March 11, 1976, being anuexures to the petition j by not acting in any manner whatsoever on the basis of the said impugned circulars; and further, by not refusing to pay the annual cash bonus to the Class III and Class IV employees of the respondent No. 2, the employees of the said Corporation including the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1990)2CALLT102(HC),94CWN393
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. In order to appreciate the issues arising for decision in this Contempt Petition, it is necessary to set out the facts in. some detail.2. The petitioners are the owners of a property being land with superstructures bearing premises No. 14, Ballygunge Park, Calcutta. They intended to demolish the existing super-structures and to raise a twelve storied residential building on the said premises. They, therefore, submitted the requisite sets of Building Plans for sanction to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation Authorities', on or about August 26, 1987. The Building Plans were 'accepted conditionally for further scrutiny' subject to certain conditions by the Corporation Authorities. From time to time thereafter certain objections/ requisitions were served upon the petitioners and they are stated to have been duly complied with by the submission of revised Building Plans whenever necessary or required.3. It is the case of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1978)ILLJ71Cal
T.K. Basu, J.1. This is an application by Himangau Chakraborty and ten others challenging certain notifications issued by the respondents. The application is in a representative capacity and it may be mentioned that, at the time of the issue of the rule nisi, leave was granted by me under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Before I come to the impugned notifications it would be useful to deal with the background of this case3. As is well-known life insurance business in India was nationalised by virtue of the enactment of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Prior to the commencement of the Act, life insurance business was in the hands of private institutions whose volume of business varied to a considerable extent.4. It is in this background that Section 11 of the Act and Sub-section (2) thereof in particular was enacted, Section 11 of the Act in so far as is material for our purpose may be usefully set out hereinbelow:11(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2000ACJ1441,(1998)3CALLT420(HC)
N.K. Mitra, J. 1. This Second Appeal is at the instance of the defendant/ appellant/Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'L.I.C.'] and has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 13th August, 1976 passed in Money Appeal No. 9 of 1975 reversing those dated 10th September, 1976 passed by the learned lOthe subordinate Judge, Nadia in Money Suit No.8 of 1973.2. Shorn off all details, the facts of this Second Appeal inter alia, are that the respondent as plaintiff filed Money Suit No.8 of 1973 in the 10th Court of the leanred subordinate judge, Nadla, against the defendant/appellant for recovery of Rs, 10,000 inter alia, alleginig that one Mohd. Monoruddin Sk. took out a Life Insurance Policy worth Rs. 10.000 from the L.I.C. and the age of the assured was approved and accepted before the policy was issued.There was medical examination of the assured before the issuance of the policy and at the time of the policy, the age o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1988)2CALLT281(HC),92CWN1092
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. A preliminary mortgage decree for sale was passed against the defendant-appellant which has thereafter been made final and the aggrieved defendant has filed this appeal. The defendant-appellant, having preferred no appeal against the preliminary decree, can not obviously challenge the correctness of the said preliminary decree in this appeal against the final decree in view of the provisions of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has not also attempted to do so. All that she has urged in support of the appeal is that the Trial Judge was wrong in making the preliminary decree final rejecting the defendant-appellant's application under Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 on the erroneous impression that the provisions of that Act can not be invoked after the passage of the preliminary decree.2. The defendant-appellant attempted to resist the passing of the final decree by an application invoking the pro...
Tag this Judgment!