Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(1)JCR18(SC)]; JT2004(8)SC29; 2004(8)SCALE25; (2004)12SCC390
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The appellant calls in question the judgment and order dated 1.8.2003 of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, by which a quarry lease granted in favour of the appellant was quashed and cancelled.2. On 11.2.1993 one Jitendra Kumar Lohia was granted quarry lease No.192 for quarrying of decorative stones in village Gandhargola, Tehsil Titilagarh, District Bolangir, Orissa. The said lease was for a period of 10 years from11.02.1993 to 10.2.2003. The said Jitendra Kumar Lohia and members of his family formed and incorporated themselves into a company under the Companies Act, 1956, in the name and style of Medley Minerals India Private Limited the appellant before us. Jitendra Kumar Lohia is one of the Directors of the said company. On 15 th October 1998 Jitendra Kumar Lohia applied to the competent authority under the Orissa Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'he Rules') for transfer of the lease under Rule 12 in favour of the app...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR706; [2006]66SCL147(Bom)
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Board of Industrial and Financial Restructuring recommended winding up of Akola Oil Mills & accordingly on 8/6/2001 present Company petition No. 5 of 2001 Akola Oil Mills Ltd came to be filed & it is already admitted by this court on 24th August 2001. On 6/6/2003 Official Liquidator came to be appointed as provisional Liquidator for it. The Official Liquidator states that in pursuance of this appointment, he has taken over possession of all properties and assets of the company at Akola which consist of land, Building, plant and machinery stores, vehicles, furniture and fixtures on 11/6/2003. So far as properties located at Mumbai, Poona and Nashik are concerned, possession thereof is taken by Official Liquidator between 22/7/2003 to 24/7/2003. He states that thereafter two valuers were appointed and their report in relation to valuation of above properties is also received. On 17/10/2003. This court directed its office to renew fixed deposit receipt (FDR) which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC755; IV(2005)BC551(SC); 2006(1)BomCR531; [2005]128CompCas387(SC); (2005)6CompLJ129(SC); JT2005(12)SC156; (2005)4MLJ184(SC); (2006)142PLR404; 2005(8)SCALE255; (2005)8SCC190
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Appellant No. 1, The Rajasthan Financial Corporation, is a corporation constituted under Section 3 of The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SFC Act'). Appellant No. 2, the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, is a deemed financial institution by virtue of exercise of power by the Central Government under Section 46 of the SFC Act. The appellants are the secured creditors of M/s Vikas Woolen Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'the company-in- liquidation'). By an order dated 14.6.1994, the company judge of the High Court of Bombay ordered the company-in-liquidation to be wound up. The Official Liquidator was directed to take charge of the assets of the company-in-liquidation. On 18.4.1995, the Official Liquidator applied for directions to the company court. He sought permission to get the property valued by a valuer from the panel of valuers of the Official Liquidator, and to sell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(1)CHN807
..... funds which is a substantial amount. he submitted that under the trust in the event of a member and/or dependant granted the pension by purchase of assurance or annuity policy or policies of contract on the life insurance corporation of india. families of members are only entitled to pension in the event of a member dying before retirement. accordingly, once pension is provided by purchase of annuity from the fund to a pensioner, he ..... 23rd december, 2004 passed by the hon'ble first court whereby his lordship while disposing of the application under section 34 of the trusts act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) was pleased to hold that the application under section 34 of the said act is maintainable. his lordship further held that the trust has to remain for payment of pension not only to ..... neither falls within the category mentioned in order 41 of the civil procedure code nor the same can be considered as a decree and as such does not fall under order 43 of the civil procedure code.5. the said order does not adjudicate right of any party nor determines any issue, therefore, cannot be termed as 'judgment' within the meaning ..... , comes to an end, or it can be declared as a resulting trust of the funds as suggested by mr. sarkar in the given facts.40. in our opinion, the decisions reported in air 1956 calcutta 281 (supra) and air 1959 sc 1049 (supra) cannot be a help to mr. sarkar in the facts and circumstances of this case.41. after considering the submissions made before .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007ACJ1441
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Leave is granted to the appellant to take the point that the brother and sister of the victim since are not the legal heir due to existence of mother of victim as sole legal heir, accordingly, insurance company had no liability to pay the compensation to them.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.3. A short question involved in this appeal as to whether in the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the brother and sister of the victim guided as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, could be entitled to be the claimants due to existence of sole legal heir mother of victim, in view of the statutory provision as stipulated under Section 163-A of the said Act that the claim application should be filed by the 'legal heirs' of the victim and further on the point as to whether the learned Tribunal below was wrong to identify the multiplier to quantify compensation amount on the basis of the age of the victim. The answer of the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2007)BC542(SC); JT2007(8)SC249; 2007(3)SCALE377
Altamas Kabir, J.1. All these appeals have been filed by the Syndicate Bank against the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 6thAugust, 2003, dismissing the several writ petitions filed by the Bank. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the Special Leave Petitions are that M/s. United Auto Tractors Private Limited, (for short 'the Company') one of the common respondents in all these appeals, applied to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for allotment of 100 acres of land in the industrial area for setting up of an industry for manufacturing agricultural tractors and implements. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by its letter dated 18thJuly, 1972 written by the Director of Industries allotted 51 acres of land in Nacharam Industrial Development Area, Hyderabad, to the company for setting up of the said industry. An Agreement was entered into on 3rd August, 1972 between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Company which requir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR462; 2007(3)BomCR98; (2007)109BOMLR559; [2007]79SCL583(Bom)
..... life insurance business given to the corporation, ceased from the commencement of the insurance regulatory and development authority act, 1999, hereinafter known as insurance regulatory act. the corporation which was carrying on life insurance business in accordance with the provisions of the insurance act, 1938, ceased to have monopoly on life insurance business. consequent thereupon various private companies are in the business of issuing life insurance policies. under section 43 of the life insurance act, only certain provisions were made applicable. there was power conferred to apply other sections as set out therein. section 30a as introduced by an amendment, however provides, that the provisions of the insurance act are applicable for carrying on business of life insurance. an argument has been advanced as to the effect of section 30a on section 43, to the extent the provisions of the insurance act are applicable to the corporation ..... is the statutory corporation established under section 3 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the life insurance act. the respondent no. 2 is the statutory authority established under section 3 of the insurance regulatory & development authority act, 1999 which hereinafter shall be referred to as irda. according to the petitioners, their business involves acquiring life insurance policies from the policy holders by paying value consideration to the policy holder. an insurance policy would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1579; 2007(2)ARBLR82(SC); 2007(3)AWC2332(SC); [2007(3)JCR1(SC)]; JT2007(6)SC156; 2007(5)SCALE700
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Present appeals are filed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on April 12, 1999 in Writ Appeal M.P. No. 1001 of 1995 and W.A.S.R. No. 38345 of 1995 by which it confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on January 27, 1995 in Writ Petition No.12016 of 1993 directing the appellant herein to comply with the award passed by an Arbitrator appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the respondents-claimants were the owners of the land bearing Survey No 83 admeasuring 12 acres and 5 gunthas and Survey No. 86/2 admeasuring 12 acres and 30 guntas, situated at Devarayamzal Village, Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District of Andhra Pradesh. The land was initially requisitioned for defence purpose, i.e. for the purpose of extension of rifle range of Hakimpet Airfield, EMC cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1040; AIR2008SC1310; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)784; 2008(1)AWC769(SC); 2008BusLR446(SC); I(2008)CPJ81(SC); (2008)3GLR2304(SC); JT2008(2)SC250; 2008(3)MhLj584; (2008)2MLJ1034(S); 2008AIRSCW1404; 2008(3)LH(SC)1956; 2008(2)ICC581
..... on 28.3.1995 and the cheque was issued much beyond the grace period. additionally, section 64vb does not apply to the appellant. in this context section 43 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (in short the 'act') has relevance. reference is also made to condition 2 of the policy.6. in reply learned counsel for the claimant submitted that it is not condition 2 of the policy which is applicable, but condition no. 3 which is applicable. it is stated that no adverse inference can be drawn because the insured had not signed the cheque and merely because the cheque was received after the death ..... time of the assured. in the instant case the cheque was admittedly received after the death of the assured. further the revival takes effect only after the same is approved by the corporation and is specifically communicated to the life insured. in the present case this is not the situation.further section 43 of the act reads as follows:43. application of the insurance act.(1) the following section of the insurance act shall, so far as may be, apply to the corporation as they apply to any other insurer, namely:-sections 2, 2b, 3, 18, 26, 33, 38, 39, 31, 45, 46, 47a, 50, 51, 52, 110a, 110b, 110c, 119, 121, 122 and 123.(2) the central .....
Tag this Judgment!