Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1986Mad154
Ramanujam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of V. Ramaswami J. allowing W. P. No. 2927 of 1977 (reported in : AIR1980Mad316 ) filed by the respondent, and it involves the interpretation of regulation 9(4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Regulation.2. The respondent herein was appointed as an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, by an order, dated 7-9-1962 with effect from 20-8-1962. Under the terms of the appointment she has to do a minimum amount of business of Re. 1 lakh on the life of 12 different persons in a calendar year. On the ground that she had not completed a minimum amount of business as required, she was informed by a letter dated 11-2-1977 that her services stood terminated under Regulation 13(l). The respondent therefore filed W. P. No. 2927 of 1977 seeking to quash the said communication dated 11-2-1977 mainly on two grounds viz. (1) according to the terms of the contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC803; 1978LabIC612; (1978)ILLJ406SC; (1978)2SCC50; [1978]3SCR334
ORDER44. We agree with the conclusion of Brother Bhagwati but prefer to rest our decision on the ground that the impugned Act violates the provisions of Article 31(2) and is, therefore, void. We consider it unnecessary to express any opinion on the effect of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in W.P. No. 371 of 1976....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ1038Mad
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The respondents Authorities of the Food Corporation of India, Madras, in W.P. No. 7863 of 1986 are the appellants in the above Writ Appeal which has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated April 26, 1996 allowing the Writ Petition and granting certain specified reliefs in the light or the subsequent development in the case.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that one late Varadhan who was working as a Picker under the second appellant died on October 13, 1984 and thereafter the writ petitioner, said to be the wife of late Varadhan claimed for the settlement of the terminal benefits due to her deceased husband by sending a notice dated November 6, 1984 to the first appellant herein through her counsel. The writ petitioner was referred by the first appellant to the second appellant for further course of action and the second appellant by his communication dated February 7, 1985 called upon the writ petitioner to produce a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?ORDER.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 23.09.2006 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner has been upheld.2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the property bearing Shop No.11, Punjab National Bank Building, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent of the said premises and hence a legal notice dated 3.6.87 was served upon the petitioner terminating the said tenancy with effect from 30.6.87. Thereafter the Estate Officer served a show cause notice dated 23.7.198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... act of 1924, 43 stat. 288. [ footnote 3/2 ] the revisers of the united states code in 1952 omitted the section because of the possibility of its having been repealed by its omission from the amendment and reenactment in 1918 of 5202 of the revised statutes by 20 of the war finance corporation act, 40 stat. 512. compare administrative ruling no. 7110 of the comptroller of the currency with the comptroller's current regulations, 12 cfr 2.1-2.5. see saxon v. georgia association of independent insurance ..... no way to judge at the outset whether it would succeed. in relation to its capital structure, security life reinsured a large amount of risk." [ footnote 6 ] both the life insurance company tax act for 1955, 70 stat. 36, applicable to the years 1955-1957, and the life insurance company income tax act of 1959, 73 stat. 112, applicable to later years, accorded preferential tax treatment to life insurance companies. [ footnote 7 ] the commissioner made an alternative allocation to management company. because it upheld his ..... had a power to appoint or designate its recipient. does the existence or exercise of such a power alone give rise to taxable income in his hands? we think clearly not. in nicholas a. stavroudis, 27 t.c. 583, 590 (1956), we found it to be settled doctrine that a power to direct the distribution of trust income to others is not, alone, sufficient to justify the taxation of that income to the possessor of such a power." [ footnote 23 ] see dissenting opinion of mr. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Moore - 333 U.S. 541 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 333 U.S. 541 (1948) Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Moore No. 337 Argued December 19, 1947 Decided larch 29, 1948 333 U.S. 541 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. As applied to policies of insurance issued by foreign corporations for delivery in New York on the lives of residents of New York, where the insured persons continue to be residents of New York and the beneficiaries are residents at the maturities of the policies, Article VII of the Abandoned Property Law of New York, requiring payment to the State of the monies held or owing by life insurance corporations and remaining unclaimed for seven years by the persons entitled thereto, does not impair the obligation of contracts within the meaning of Art. I, 10 of the Constitution. Pp. 333 U. S. 545 -548. 2. Nor does it deprive foreign insurance companies of their prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1975AP68
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Keshavadas Jamanadas died of jaundice on 4-11-1966. The Life Insurance Corporation of India seeks to repudiate a policy of insurance which Keshavdas Jamanadas had taken out about one and a half years earlier on the ground that in his 'personal statement' he had stated that he had not suffered from any illness and had not consulted any medical practitioner within the last five years when in fact he had once suffered from indigestion for a few days and had taken a 'cihoornam' from an Ayurvedic practitioner, The jaundice of which Keshavdas Jamanadas died had not the remotest connection with the indigestion from which he suffered for a few days several months earlier. But the Life Insurance Corporation wants to profit by the inaccuracy and seeks to deprive the assured s dependents of the amount of insurance. I consider the attitude of the Life Insurance Corporation highly improper and grotesquely unfair. But the learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation urges...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1978]111ITR711(Mad)
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the money received under a policy of insurance effected by the deceased on his life and assigned absolutely in favour of his wife was not chargeable to estate duty under section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, on the death of the deceased ?'The short facts necessary for appreciating the above question are as follows : One Pitchai Thambi died on March 19, 1966, at the age of 70. He had taken an insurance policy No. 78214414 on November 18, 1953, for a sum of Rs. 20,000 from the Bombay Life Insurance Society. He assigned the said policy in favour of his wife on March 16, 1956. The policy matured on November 18, 1965. The deceased wrote a letter to the Life Insurance Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 02.05.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/12/273. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant has been allowed and the appellants/Insurance Corporation, has been directed to pay within period of two months from the date of order the amount payable as accidental benefit under policy Nos.370473369, 384067139 and 385316764 and also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 10/09/2012 and also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-. If the aforesaid amount is not paid within the stipulated period, then the aforesaid amount would be payable along with interest 09% p.a. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the during his life time, the husband of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1973]43CompCas534(Kar); ILR1973KAR1292; (1973)2MysLJ117
Venkataswami, J. 1. This appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1967 on the file of the Civil Judge, Udipi, is by the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'L.I.C.'). The suit which had been filed by the Canara Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'trustee') as a trustee under five insurance policies, the assured sums thereunder aggregating to Rs. 1,30,000, and the heirs of the deceased-assured, was decreed for a sum of rupees 1,65,546, with current and future interest thereon at the rate of 7 1/2% per annum. 2. The relevant facts leading up to the appeal, briefly, are as follows : One V. S. R. Sriranga Shetty, a merchant of Mercara, took out five insurance policies with the appellant. The first four policies were for a sum of Rs. 25,000 each and the last one for Rs. 30,000. On the date of submission of his proposals in regard to the first two policies, the assured was 48 years old. All these policies were taken out and issued between the date...
Tag this Judgment!