Court : Punjab and Haryana
K. Kannan, J. Oral: 1. The writ petition challenges the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation rejecting the plea of the petitioner for commission earned in the business that he had canvassed and the commission payable for the premium paid by the policy holders subsequent to his voluntary resignation. In an earlier round of litigation, the writ petition in C.W.P. No.17150 of 2007 had been originally dismissed but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed this Court to decide the case on merits. In C.W.P. No.17150 of 2007, this Court had directed by its order dated 05.12.2008 that the Corporation will take a decision under Rule 19 on the petitioner's entitlement to the commission on voluntary resignation. 2. The Corporation, while dismissing the petitioner's claim passed a cryptic order on 07.03.2009 and the operative portion in so far as it dealt with rejection of the petitioner's claim comes through these words:- “We have now been informed by the competent authority that after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1974]96ITR101(P& H)
B.S. Dhillon, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Wealth-tax References Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1972. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these references are that Yuvraj Arnrinder Singh, who is an assessee in W. T. References Nos. 2 and 3 of 1972, and Princess Rupinder Kumari, who is an assessee in W. T. Reference No. 4 of 1972, are individual assessees. The dispute regarding the assessment of Yuvraj Amrinder Singh relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, for which the valuation dates, respectively, are March 31, 1964 and March 31, 1965, whereas the assessment year in the case of Princess Rupinder Kumari is 1965-66 and the valuation date is March 31, 1965. The assessees claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The value of the annuity policy in the case of Yuvraj Amrinder Singh is Rs. 2,13,000, whereas in the case of Princess Rupinder Kumari, the value of the annuity policy is Rs. 2,35,176. The assessees claimed that the amount of the annuity po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1976P& H176
Bal Raj Tuli, J.1. A DivisionBench has referred the following question of law for determination by this Bench:-- 'Whether the restriction placed by regulation 25 (4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, framed under Section 49(2) (b) and (bb) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act debarring the employees of the Corporation from taking part in any election does or does not amount to a disqualification for being chosen as a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly within the meaning of Sub-clause (e) of Clause (1) of Article 191 of the Constitution.'Regulation 25 (4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which places the restriction, reads as under:-- 'No employee shall canvass or otherwise interfere or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority.Provided that--(i) an employee qualified to vote at such election may exerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1966]36CompCas105(P& H)
ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH 1. Three persons--Tirath Ram, Mulk Raj and Barkat Ram--were doing business as the partners of a firm called Tirath Ram and Sons, and the business was carried on in what is now a part of Pakistan. At the time of the partition and because of it they came away to India. Before the partition, however, and while still in Pakistan they had taken a loan fr6m the Central Bank of India Limited and pledged with that bank certain goods, being cotton and cotton seeds. Those goods had been insured with the Free India General Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 27,000 against fire as well as not and the loan taken from the bank was also Rs. 27,000. The goods in question were during the disturbances in Pakistan looted by some rioters. After coming to India and, in fact, after the enactment of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, an application was filed on behalf of the firm, Tirath Ram and Sons, under Section 18 of that Act and the application was for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1965P& H401
H.R. Khanna, J.1. In the present and seven connected petitions Nos. 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1114 and 1115 of 1962 under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India the Division Bench, consisting of Mehar Singh J. and myself, referred the following two questions for decision obey a larger Bench:'(1) Whether the order of the Punjab Government dated 29th September 1961 bifurcating the P. E. S. (Class II) into school and Collage Cadres is violative in whole or in part of the principle of preserving inter seniority embodied in rule 16 of the Punjab Services Integration Rule 1957? (2) Are the promotions to P. E. S. (Class I), in the wake of the aforesaid bifurcation of the respondents who were originally junior to the petitioners in the joint P. E. S. (Class II) list in preference to the petitioners on the sole ground of the nature of the said Rule and Article 16 of the Constitution. (2) The petitioners filed these petitions on the allegations that there were two classes of gazetted offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ414P& H
1. Whether the National Insurance Company Limited is 'a State' for the purposes of Article 12, or a statutory Corporation amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the somewhat significant question which arises on the very threshold in this writ petition.2. The issue being pristinely legal, the facts pale into relative insignificance. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner, who is the Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company Limited, claims to aggrieved by his alleged supersession by officers junior to him and, therefore, invokes Article 16 of the Constitution in his aid. Further a grievance is made about a marginal reduction in his basic salary, which has been labelled as reduction in rank, for which the remedy is sought for in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Apart from the merits, a significant preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition has been raised and strenuo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1979P& H183
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.1. Whether the National Insurance Company Limited is ''a State'' for the purposes of Art. 12, or a statutory Corporation amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the somewhat significant question which arises on the very threshold in this writ petition.2. The issue being pristinely legal, the f acts pale into relative insignificance. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner, who is the Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company Limited, claims to be aggrieved by his alleged supersession by officers junior to him and therefore, invokes Art. 16 of the Constitution in his aid. Further a grievance is made about a marginal reduction in his basic salary, which, has been labelled as reduction in rank, for which' the remedy is sought for in the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.3. Apart from the merits, a significant preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the writ petition has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas327(P& H); [1979(38)FLR46]
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the Punjab National Bank, a nationalised bank. On December 6, 1974, the Assistant Regional Manager of the bank issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain alleged malpractices. It was stated in the notice that certain complaints had been received against the petitioner, that the complaints had been investigated by an inspector and that certain malpractices were noticed. The malpractices were stated to be as follows I'1. The undernoted borrowers have given written statements to the investigating officer, duly attested by Oath Commissioner, Mohindergarh, that they paid the amount, mentioned against each, to you as bribe for getting loan from the bank : Rs.(a) Ram Chander, son of RachpalSingh50(b) Bishan Lal, son of KaburChand150(c) Sant Lal, son of Jai Dayal75(d) Tirath Dass, son of HariChand90(e) Ratti Ram, son of KaburChand150Shri Mool Chand, son of Bi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2004ACJ1301; (2003)133PLR643
M.L. Singhal, J.1. This regular second appeal has been filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and decree dated 26.8.1999 of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana reversing that of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna dated 12.12.1997 and resultantly decreeing the respondent-plaintiffs suit for the recovery of Rs.67,860/- i.e., Rs.58,000/- payable under the Insurance policy and Rs.98607- on account of interest for the period 12.3.1992 to 11.8.1993 @ 12% per annum.2. Facts: Plaintiff Rajinder Pal Sood filed suit for the recovery of Rs.67860/- i.e. Rs.58,000/- payable under the insurance policy and Rs.9860/- as interest for the period 12.3.1992 to 11.8.1993 @ 12% p.a. on the basis of Hospitalisation, and Domiciliary Benefit Hospitalisation Insurance Policy dated 21.8.1991, on the allegations, that on 21.8.1991, he was at his old residence at Khanna where duly constituted attorney of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. approached him with a view to securing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)119PLR354
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1985 dated March 13, 1996.2. The only dispute in this appeal is in regard to the interest on the amount covered by the policy. On Parkash husband of the first respondent took a policy in his name on his life for Rs. 50,000/- in July, 1975 and he died on 4.5.1976. The plaintiffs then requested the defendant Corporation to pay them the amount but the corporation did not pay the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed this suit for recovery of the amount. The trial Court decreed the suit but no interest has been granted. The plaintiffs filed an appeal claiming interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The appellate Court awarded interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of death of the insured. Aggrieved by the same the Life Insurance Corporation filed the present appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant conte...
Tag this Judgment!