Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(6)BomCR219
A.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 is for the issue of appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to rescind and revoke the amendment effected to the Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme as per the Deed of Variation dated 3.4.2002 and the letters dated 2.4.2002 and 3.4.2002 issued pursuant to the amended scheme requiring the pensioners to make payment of additional contribution towards annuities purchased for Respondent No. 3 Life Insurance Corporation of India and, to continue such annuities without any alteration to its terms and quantum and without any payment of additional contribution from the pensioners. The Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are the retired employees of the Respondent No. 2-Air India Limited. The Petitioner No. 6 is a registered association representing the retired pensioners of the Respondent No. 2. The first Respondent is the Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme constituted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant113; ILR2002KAR1400; 2002(2)KarLJ213
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioners are agents of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). They are calling in question the notices issued by the respondent-Corporation invoking their powers under Regulation 17(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 ('Regulations' for short).2. Brief facts are:First petitioner is working as agent in the respondent-Corporation right from the year 1983. He got married to one Smt. B.S. Girija on 16-4-1992, who is a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Prior to the marriage, first petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to give him permission to marry an employee of the Corporation, and had further requested to permit him to continue to be the agent of the respondent- Corporation. The request made by the petitioner had not been replied by the respondent-Corporation one way or the other.3. Second petitioner is also working as an agent of the respondent-Corporation right from the ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999ACJ116; 1998(4)ALLMR278; 1998(4)BomCR837; [2000]101CompCas29(Bom); 1998(3)MhLj537
ORDERPer P.S. Patankar, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 Life insurance Corporation of India to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the death of the insured till payment on the ground that there was a concluded contract between the parties in respect of the two Insurance Policies. The question, in short, involved is whether there was a concluded contract between the parties. A few facts are as under :-- Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters and petitioner No. 1 is the widow of one late Mansukhlal Kothari. Mansukhlal Kothari had given proposal for two insurance policies for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 14th August, 1987. He also sent a cheque dated 18th September, 1987 for a sum of Rs. 4,169.25. Respondent No. 1accepted it and encashed it on 21st September, 1987. Mansukhlal Kothari died of heart attack on 28th Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(4)MPHT66; 2001(3)MPLJ246
ORDERS.C. Pandey, J. 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 3-3-97 passed by the Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 61/96.2. The applicant is aggrieved by framing of charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the Act of 1947'). He is also being prosecuted for the aforesaid offences with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. There are other charges framed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of IPC. This Court is not concerned with the charges framed against the applicant under the provisions of Penal Code and Section 120B thereof so far as it is applicable to those offences. The revision is confined to framing of charges under Section 5(1)(d) read with Sections (2) of the Act and the allegations of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC so far as it relates to those charges.3. It has been argued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1126; (1982)ILLJ110SC; (1982)1SCC205; [1982]2SCR246
A.C. Gupta and R.S. Pathak, JJ.1. The validity of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981 and the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 which preceded it is challenged in this batch of writ petitions. The writ petitions have a history behind them which can be conveniently divided into three chapters. However, it will be easier to follow this history if we refer to some of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 first The Life Insurance Corporation was constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to provide for the nationalisation of life insurance business in India by transferring all such business to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Under Section 11(1) of the Act the services of the employees of insurers whose business has vested in the Corporation are transferred to the Corporation. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides:Where the Central Government is satisfied that for the purpose of securing u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1527; [1987(54)FLR750]; JT1987(2)SC529; (1987)IILLJ414SC; 1987(1)SCALE975; 1988Supp(1)SCC1; [1987]3SCR180; 1987(2)LC681(SC)
1. The question involved in these appeals by special leave which are filed against the judgment dated August 17, 1985 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 6849 of 1984 relates to the constitutional validity of Regulation 19(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the (Staff) Regulations, 1960'), as amended on 21.1.1977 by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') which provides that an employee belonging to Class I or Class II appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September, 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age but the competent authority may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so, direct such employee to retire on completion of 50 years of age and at any time thereafter on giving him three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof.2. Prior to January, 1955 there were more than 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1970]40CompCas611(All); [1971(21)FLR357]; (1970)IILLJ393All
V.G. Oak, C.J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution a certain regulation framed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereafter referred to as the ' Corporation ') has been challenged. Shyam Lal Sharma is the petitioner. The Corporation is respondent No. 1. The chairman of the Corporation is respondent No. 2.2. The Corporation was established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from the 1st of September, 1956. The petitioner is an employee of the Corporation. Section 49 of the Act has conferred on the Corporation power to make regulations. By virtue of that authority, the Corporation has made a number of regulations. Regulation No. 25 prohibits employees of the Corporation from participating in politics and standing for elections. According to the petitioner, regulation No. 25 violates a number of fundamental rights conferred on him by Article 19 of the Constitution, and is, therefore, void. The petit...
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 : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR698; 2009(2)KarLJ273; 2009(1)AIRKarR21
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Senior Branch Manager in the cadre of Class-I Officer with the first respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation'). The case made out by the petitioner is that he voluntarily retired from service on 07.11.1991 due to some domestic and personal reasons. This petition is filed for the relief to declare that the age of the officer to be 55 years at the time of voluntary retirement under Regulation 19(2)(a) to be ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India and further declare the respondent Corporation to grant commutation amount of the pension and to pay pension from the date of his retirement on 01.11.1993 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts germane for the disposal of this case can be stated in brief as follows:The petitioner, as stated earlier, was a Class-I Officer, Due to some domestic problems, he proposes ...
Tag this Judgment!