Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-06-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal285
..... , on the 19th january, 1956 the life insurance (emergency commissions) ordinance, 1956 came into force nationalising life insurance business in india from the 20th january. 1956. after the nationalisation the petitioner continued as divisional superintendent under the custodian appointed by the ordinance. the life insurance corporation act, 1956 came into force on the 18th june, 1956, the appointed day being the 1st september, 1956. section 11 of the act made provisions for transfer of service of existing employees of insurance companies to the corporation. now on taking over, the life insurance corporation put the petitioner into the category of an inspector now called field officer. the petitioner complained that he deserved a better post and made an application to the patna ..... into a well-knit cadre within the life insurance corporation had been completed:'this task has now been completed. the case of each officer was gone into carefully on the basis of the rank assigned to him in the lists annexed to the report of the 'lall committee' as well as the quality of work of the officer as ascertained from the confidential reports obtained for the purpose. as desired by government, these decisions were submitted to them and their approval obtained before they were given effect to.'then he relies on page 43 of that report to show that under class i of the category .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-28-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal108
ORDERSinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was appointed with effect from the 10th January, 1956 as Chief Inspector of the Asiatic Government Security Lite and General Assurance Co. Ltd. He was on probation for a period of not less than one year from the date of his joining. The appointment was based on an annual contract of Rs. 10,00000/- completed business yielding a first year's premium income of not less than Rs. 25,000/-. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 which nationalised all life insurance business in India, came into force on the 1st September, 1956 as a result of which, the petitioner became an employee under the Life Insurance Corporation of India, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. On the 21st November, 1956 it was intimated to him by a letter, a copy of which is annexure 'B' to the petition, that he was designated as 'Inspector', and would operate within the Calcutta Postal Zones. The letter contained the following...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-08-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal443,65CWN69
..... of the respondents in the affairs of the company since 19th january, 1956 clearly establish that they never intended to distribute the compensation money amongst the share-holders who are entitled thereto but to hold it in their hands and at their disposal and benefit by the strength of their majority or controlling voting power. this conduct of the respondents was no doubt oppressive to the company and to the applicants' minority share holding in the company. section 39 of the life insurance corporation act clearly envisages distribution, of the compensation money amongst the share-holders of the (insurer) company whose controlled business has been transferred ..... at a general meeting. 42. during 1958 two further board meetings were held and in neither of them it appears the quorum was present but instead persons who were not directors were wrongfully allowed to take parb in the proceedings. 43. this brings us to the end of 1958 when the last of the directors had retired by rotation. with the close of the year 1958 the company thus did not have any directors at all. yet it appears that on 21st january, 1959 a board .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-16-1960
Reported in : AIR1962Cal45,65CWN23,(1961)ILLJ59Cal
ORDERG.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is an application by the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association against (1) the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation of India with his office at Hindusthan Building, Calcutta, (2) the Divisional Manager, Hindusthan Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd. and (3) the Chairman, Life Insurance Coporation of India, Bombay, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to cancel the basic pay actually drawn on August 31, 1956 by persons who were formerly employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited and to give effect to their basic pay in accordance with law for the purpose For fitting in with the new scale adopted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and for other reliefs. The petitioner has no personal interest in the matter and is seeking to get redress for the ex-employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited. 2 to 12. (After stating...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-29-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal248,(1961)IILLJ30Cal
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. Three questions of importance, touching the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and the inter-relation of some of its sections and its three Chapters IV, V and V-A and their relative mutual impact on one another, arise for consideration in this appeal and they embrace, in particular, determination of the meaning and scope of the two terms 'employee' and 'factory' and the effect thereof and of the exemption, granted by the State Government under Sections 87 and 88 of the Act, on the employer's liability for special contribution under the aforesaid Chapter V-A. For proper appreciation of the questions raised and facilitating due determination of the same, it is necessary to state the facts which led up to the present proceeding. Those facts lie within a short compass and they stand as follows:The appellant, the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., is a business concern, carrying on the business of generating and supplying electrical energy for use, inter alia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-23-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal461,1961CriLJ204
Sen, J.1. These two Revisional applications are directed against an order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Sri Bijayesh Mukherji issuing process under Sections 467/109 and 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners S.M. Basil and P.N. Talukdar. Revision Case No. 681 of 1959 has been filed by S.M. Basu and Revision Case No. 1049 of 1959 has been filed by P.N. Talukdar.2. The petition of Complaint by the present complainant Saroj Ranjan Sarkar who is the youngest brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, was filed on 3-4-59. But before the present complaint filed by Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, a previous complaint on the same facts was filed by Promode Ranjan Sarkar, second brother of the late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. That complaint was filed on 17-3-54 and was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the then Chief Presidency Magistrate Sri N.C. Chakravarti on 6-8-54. Thereafter, a Revisional application (Revision Case No. 1059 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-24-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal48,[1962]32CompCas246(Cal),64CWN1032
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of J. P. Mitter, J. decreeing the plaintiff's suit with costs and interest for the sum of Rs. 93,628-8-0. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 1,43,628-8-0. The learned trial Judge recorded the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000 had already been paid and therefore he decreed the suit for the balance of the sum of Rs. 93,628-8-0.2. The main point for decision in this appeal is the effect of an unstamped Protection Note under the law of insurance. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on such an unstamped Protection Note which is also known as a Cover Note in respect of insurance against fire regarding plaintiff's stock of bidi leaves and tobacco. The decision depends on the construction of the provision for 'General Exemption' in Article 47 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act.3. Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act is introduced by Section 3 of the Statute providing for instruments chargeable with duty. The opening words of Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-26-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal258,65CWN1142
D.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner company carries on business in iron and steel materials. It is a well known business house in Calcutta, and has been carrying on business since 1940, having been incorporated as a company in 1923. Ever since the inception of statutory control of the distribution of Iron and Steel in 1941, the petitioner company has been registered as a stock-holder under the Iron and Steel Control Orders. The petitioner company had also been appointed as a 'Controlled Stockholder', but in this application we are not concerned with that aspect of the matter. In this case we are concerned with events which occurred in 1957. At that time, the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by the Central Government by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was in operation. This order superseded the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941 and the Iron and S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-29-1960
Reported in : AIR1962Cal12
..... defendant respondent where reference is made to this charge. the doctrine of feeding the estoppel has two statutory recognitions. one is contained in section 43 of the transfer of property act and the other is contained in section 18 (b) (a ?) of the specific relief act. neither of these two sections is applicable in the present case. section 43 applies to the case of a transfer by an unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in the property transferred. a charge is not a case of transfer of interest ..... the wife in favour of banerji agreeing to pay rs. 15/- per month to the husband during his life and creating a charge on the said premises to 'secure such annuity. it is then said that there was mutation in favour of the 'wife in the corporation records, tin 1927-1938 but then this was again altered in favour of the husband in 1934. ..... ) 12 east 409 at p. 413; wells v. abrahams, (1872) 7 qb 554 at page 560; midland insurance co. v. smith, (1881) 6 qbd 561; ex parte, ball in re shepherd, (1879) 10 ch. d. 667; smith ..... however, was sought, in the prayers of the plaint which remained as they were before. the second amendment was made by another order of the court on the 13th march, 1956 on the application of the plaintiff. by this amendment, the plaintiff introduced the case that he acted on the statements and declaration made in the registered agreement of the 2nd april, 1948 and introduced paragraph 6b of the plaint pleading that the defendants or either of them was estopped .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-25-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Cal199,1961CriLJ472,64CWN899
Banerjee, J. 1. This is a reference made to a Special Division Bench, under the second proviso to Rule 1, Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules. The particular question of law referred for determination is :'Whether Rule 9 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Rules 1950 is ultra vires?'2. Rule 9 above referred to is quoted below : '9. In making inquiries under the Act, the Controller, the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, the District Judge or the Judicial Officer to whom the case may be transferred under the provision of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 3,908, for the regular trial of suits, the substance only of the evidence being recorded as in unappealable cases and shall record in brief 'the reasons for his findings.'3. I need refer to the facts of the case briefly, so as to understand how this reference came to be made.4. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!