Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1997All152
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. The petitioner, admittedly, has married with an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India respondent No. 1. She was appointed as Insurance Agent by letter of March 31, 1982 (Annexure-I to the writ petition), which inter-alia, is subjected to a condition that if in future the petitioner has any relationship with any employee of the Corporation then her agency will be terminated in accordance with Rubs.2. On account of petitioner's matrimonial relationship with an employee of the Corporation, the respondents terminated her agency by giving one month's notice dated February 17, 1986 (Annexure VII to the writ petition) under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations,' which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner.3. The impugned notice dated February 17, 1986 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) was challenged in appeal by the petitioner but failed and, therefore, the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004ACJ2125; AIR2003Mad382; 2003(3)CTC526; (2003)3MLJ110
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 207 of 1986 on the file of Sub-Court, Namakkal, filed the above appeal. Pending appeal, the first appellant died. Her only daughter, the second appellant, i's already on record as her legal. 2. Appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money under the policy of Insurance and after due trial, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, against which, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 3. The plaintiffs had averred in their plaint as follows:One R. Muthusamy Gounder had taken a life insurance policy dated 7.2.1983 for a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh in Policy No. 45149780 and on 24.1.1983, a sum of Rs. 7,770 was remitted towards premium for one year. He is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff. The policy stood both in the name of said R. Muthusamy Gounder and his wife. He was in sound health all along. He suddenly died at Vadugam village of Rasipuram taluk on 8.12.1983. Since he did n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(Delhi)645; 75(1998)DLT231; 1998(47)DRJ659
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit was instituted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,34,555/-, detailed calculations and heads of which have been given in paragraph No. 22 of the plaint. The aforesaid claim of the plaintiff against the defendant as set out in the plaint is set out below : (a) Interest u/Sec. 34 of L.A. Act, 1894 @ 6% per annum on the awarded compensation amount of Rs.1,22,130/- from 14.3.68 (the date of dispossession from the acquired land) up to 26.4.1982 (the date on which the payment was made to the plaintiff/ Corporation) viz. for 14 years and 44 days: 1,03,472.55 Less such interest u/Sec. 34 of the L.A. Act already awarded by the L.A.C. for the period w.e.f. 14.3.68 to 12.1.1969: 6,123.62 97,348.93 (b) Interest u/Sec. 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 @ 6% per annum on the assessed market value of Rs.1,06,200/- from 13.11.1962 up to 26.4.1982 (the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(5)ALD450; 2000(5)ALT232; [2000(87)FLR522]; (2000)IILLJ1462AP
ORDER1. In these writ petitions, the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('the LIC' for brevity) impugns the order of the controlling authority dated 21-9-1998, as confirmed by the appellate authority on 11-10-1999, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') directing payment of gratuity amount to the third respondent/employee. As the question that arises for consideration is the same and the petitioner is also the same, the writ petitions are being disposed by this common order.2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The respondent-employee served the LIC as Class-III employee and was promoted to Class-I later. The employee retired after a total service of 33 years. While calculating gratuity LIC followed its own rules, which resulted in payment 'of less amount. The employee preferred an application before the authority claiming the difference of amount towards gratuity. He alleged that the LIC is covered by the Act, that the LIC displayed the Act prominent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.8.2003 passed in W.P.No. 10291 of 2003.2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 25.1.1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No. 2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 12.7.2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs. 12122/- in PSA.No. 2/02 and Rs. 53276/- in PSA No. 3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No. 5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 24.2.2003.4. Aggrieved against the same, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)MPLJ419
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Short facts giving rise to this Civil Revision are that Shri Bhagchand Sharma had an Insurance Policy against his life bearing No. S/341332096 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 27-3-1990. The respondents are the daughters of Bhagchand Sharma, who became unwell during his duty hours and was admitted to the Government District Hospital, Khandwa. Bhagchand Sharma died during his treatment in the Hospital. The matter was reported to the police who got the post mortem performed on the body of deceased Bhagchand Sharma, No offence was found to have been committed and accordingly, the concerning police station closed the case of death of Bhagchand Sharma. The factum of death was informed to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. There was one more Policy of Insurance bearingNo. S/341331808 against the life of Bhagchand Sharma for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The claim was submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1966)IILLJ669Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a field officer in the Life insurance Corporation of India. He was formerly a branch manager in Universal Fire and General Insurance Company, Ltd., drawing a salary of Rs, 500 a month and conveyance allowance of Rs. 150. Prior to the enactment of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, which came into force on 1 September 1956, an emergency Ordinance, followed by an Act, had been passed, as a result of which the controlled business of an insurer was taken over by the Government of India. A Custodian had been appointed in respect of such controlled business, controlled business being that part of the business of the insurer which related to life insurance business only. As part of his powers, the Custodian fixed the salary of the petitioner, the company in which he had been employed being one which was doing composite business, that is to say, both life and general insurance. The Life Insurance Corporation Act called for a separation of the life busin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal285
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution which Sinha, J. dismissed. The matter now comes up in appeal before us. The appellant is one K. D. Banerji, Assistant Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.2. The appellant's case is, in effect, to ask for an order of mandamus in his favour directing the respondents to give him the scale of pay, motor car allowance, dearness allowance and basic salary as payable to the grade of Assistant Branch Managers in the Life Insurance Corporation.3. In order to succeed in this contention he has to satisfy this Court that he has a legal right which can be enforced by the writ. That legal right so far as the particular Statute is concerned can only be traced or claimed either under an Order under Section 11(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 or under any Regulations made under Section 49(2)(bb) of the same Act. Neither any Order under Section 11(2) nor any Regulation under Section 49(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)ILLJ651Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J. 1. The petitioner before us was holding the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporations of India under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, on 1 September, 1956, on 1 September 1956 the petitioner who became entitled under S. 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly-established Corporation was appointed as a section head. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by S. 11(2). 3. The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as superintendent with effect from 1 September, 1956 and make available to him the highe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant71; AIR1968Mys71; (1969)ILLJ651aKant
Somnath Iyer, J. (1) The petitioner before us was holding the post of a Superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, on September 1, 1956, the petitioner who became entitled under Section 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly established Corporation was appointed as a section Head. (2) In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by Section 11(2). (3) The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as Superintendent with effect from September 1, 1956 and make available to him the higher promoti...
Tag this Judgment!