Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-12-1977
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ211Mad
..... of art. it) of the constitution.29. point no. 1: the act (life insurance corporation act of j956) is an act to provide for the nationalisation of life insurance business in india by transferring all such business to a corporation establish-ed for the purpose and to provide for regulation and control of the business of the corporation and for matfers connected therewith or incidental thereto. by a notification this act came into force on 1st july, 1956. by virtue of section 3 of the act, the life insurance corporauon of india was established with effect from 1st of september, i9j6. the corporation is essentially a business organisation is evident by a reading of section 6 of the act. by the application of section 7 on 1-9-1956, a transfer of all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business ..... . instead an order could not be passed so to drastically affect the remuneration. where the officer is sought to be 4ealt with individually, of course, disciplinary action can be taken, but where a business organization like the life insurance corporation in the interest of the corporation and the policy-holders, effects a reduction' of the salaries or the terms and conditions it deals with a class of persons and not individually.43. the figures furnished in paragraph 21 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition show that it remained at the rate of rs. 25,000 per year between 1955-58. this only .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-16-1977
Reported in : AIR1978SC375; [1978]48CompCas312(SC); (1977)1SCC215; [1978]2SCR422; 1978(10)LC43(SC)
Desai, J.1. This miscellaneous petition by interveners raises a short but interesting question in the field of Company Law.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present miscellaneous petition are that Company Petition No. 85 of 1975 was filed by Jairam Das Gupta and others (for short 'Gupta Group') in the Calcutta High Court under Sections 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956, complaining of oppression by the majority, and praying for various reliefs. Respondents in this petition were Cosmosteels Private Limited (for short 'the Company') and three others who would be referred to in this judgment as 'Jain Group'. By an order made by the Company Judge on 21st April 1977 the Board of Directors of the Company was superseded and one Mr. Sachin Sinha, Advocate, was appointed as Administrator to discharge various functions set out in the order. The Court also appointed Mr. N. Chakraborty, a Chartered Accountant and Auditor to investigate into the accounts of the Company and one Mr. A. K. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-15-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Cal298
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The suit in question was filed on 25th June, 1974. The Master's Summons for the application for amendment of the plaint was taken out on 25th June, 1977. The summons was made returnable on the 4th July, 1977 and on the 4th July, 1977 directions for affidavits were obtained from the Court. The suit is by the plaintiff, I. T. C. Ltd. against seven defendants. The main defendant, however, is the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant No. 1, of which the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors and guarantors, had borrowed some money and the plaintiff had agreed to lend and advance to the defendant No. 1 the said moneys on, inter alia, the terms that they would pledge two Trawlers to the plaintiff as security for repayment of the amounts advanced. Both the trawlers were insure with the National Insurance Company Ltd. being the defendant No. 5 herein. The material fact for the present p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-14-1977
Reported in : AIR1978SC383; 1978CriLJ481; (1978)2SCC382; 1978(10)LC123(SC)
P.N. Shighal, J. 1. petition for special leave to appeal to this Court was filed Baidyanath Ghosh, Dharam Ghosh and Nitya Sen against the 'appellate judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated March 3, 1975, upholding their conviction for an offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. When the matter came up before this Court on December 13, 1976, special leave was granted only to the appellant Nitya Sen and the petition in so far as at it related to Baidyanath Ghosh and Dharam Ghosh, was dismissed. We have therefore heard argument of the counsel for the appellant.2. It is not in dispute that Chintamoni Ghosh and appellant Nitya Sen belonged to the same village Chintamoni Ghosh was serving in the Thermal Power Plant at Tribeni in the Hooghly district. He used to come to his village Dadupur (within the jurisdiction of police station Nakaspara) on every Saturday, to meet his mother, wife and brothers. It is alleged that when he came to his house ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-02-1977
Reported in : AIR1978SC356; [1978(36)FLR128]; (1978)ILLJ181SC; (1978)1SCC194; [1978]2SCR345; 1978(10)LC1(SC)
Kailasam, J.1. These appeals raise the same question of law and may be dealt with together and can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Civil Appeal No. 652 of 1976 is filed by the Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. by certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra: Pradesh by an order dated 2nd April, 1976. The appellant company is a factory situated at Sanatnagar where asbestos sheets are manufactured. The company has Zonal Sales Offices in various States and in, the State of Andhra Pradesh they have such Zonal Offices at Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. We are concerned with the Vijay-wada Zonal Office. There are employees in the Zonal Office who do the work of canvassing for the sale of products manufactured in, the factory located at Sanatnagar. It is contended that the Zonal Offices are establishments and are not factories and as such do not fall within the scop(c) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The High Court negatived the contention of the appellant.3. Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-29-1977
Reported in : [1978]114ITR732(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The assessee, in this case is a license who holds a licence granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for the distribution of electricity. So far as the financial working of the assessee-company is concerned, there is no dispute that it is regulated by the provisions of sections 57 and 57A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and the Sixth Schedule therein. The questions which have been referred at the instant of the assessed and the revenue arise out of assessment under the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. 2. In the assessment year 1957-58, the Wealth-tax Officer restored to global valuation and took into account the value of the fixed assets as per the balance-sheet of the company which, according to the wealth-tax Officer, was more than the written down value computed for the purposes of income-tax and was more approximate to the market value. In respect of the assessment years 1958-59, apart from the valuation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-25-1977
Reported in : (1978)IILLJ444Ker
Subramonian Poti, J.1. The application of the doctrine of notional extension of employment arises for consideration in this case. this is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut in an application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act. The applicant before the Employees' Insurance Court, Calicut, which is the first respondent in this appeal, was employed with M/s. J. & P. Coats (P) Limited, Koratty, the second respondent in the appeal and he is an insured employee. While proceeding to the factory from his house for reporting for duty on 26-6-1971, he met with an accident at about 4-15 p.m. The accident took place at about 1 kilometre to the north of the factory. The applicant was riding a bicycle at that time and he was hit by a lorry belonging to the employer. As a result of the accident his collar bone was fractured and he sustained other injuries. He was under treatment till 6-7-1971. The worker was totally and permanently incapacitated for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-24-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN687
..... the defendant-appellant has been over-ruled in sukhdeo singh v. bhagatram : (1975)illj399sc , in which it was held that rules and regulations framed by the oil and natural gas commission, life insurance corporation and the industrial finance corporation have the force of law. the employees of these statutory bodies have a statutory status and they are entitled to declaration of being in employment when their dismissal or removal is in contravention of statutory provisions. in thi ..... article 311 of the constitution of india. it was also contended that no emergency existed and the vice-chancellor could not invoke the powers under section 13(4)(a) university of rajputana. act, 1946. it was also contended that an application under order 41, rule 1, cpc had been filed on 17-2-1977 seeking permission to raise the legal point that the ..... tyagi : (1970)illj32sc , it was held that dismissal though in violation of regulation framed under agricultural produce (development and ware housing) corporation act, 1956 is not in breach of mandatory provisions under the act, employee cannot claim reinstatement.22. in stale of assam v. ajit kumar sharma : (1966)illj451sc , it was held that rules ..... rules and the suit so brought by him was per se not maintainable4. the learned munsiff framed the following issues on 5-1-76:1. whether order no. 25639-43 est dated the 9th december, 1975 is illegal, invalid, inoperative and if so what is its effect on the suit?(2) whether rule 33(iv) of the rajasthan university .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-24-1977
Reported in : (1978)IILLJ139Cal
S.K. Dutta, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager, Calcutta in the Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as the Sterling) by a letter dated March 17, 1971 with effect from April 1, 1971, by way of ' contractual appointment', for a period of 3 years ending on the 31st March, 1974. The letter of appointment provided that on the expiry of the contract period, i.e.,. March 31, 1974 the petitioner's service would stand automatically terminated unless renewed by mutual agreement on terms as would be agreed upon. It was further provided that either party would be entitled to terminate the employment by a month's notice in writing or on payment of month's salary in lieu thereof. The employer reserved his right to terminate the service without notice at any time on ground of misconduct, gross negligence, absence from duty without permission, breach of discipline, etc.2. While the petitioner was working in the company on the basis of the said contr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-23-1977
Reported in : [1979]119ITR660(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a consolidated reference in respect of two assessment years. Certain questions are referred at the instance of the Commissioner and a common question for the two assessment years at the instance of the assessee. For the first of the two assessment years we are governed by the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. For the second year we are governed by the I. T. Act, 1961, but the change in the statutory provisions applicable makes no difference to the questions referred to us except that the reference will be under s. 66(1) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, for the first year and under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, for the later year. The questions for the respective years are found in para. 9 of the statement of case, but we propose to give them fresh numbers so that they may be more easily answered, since we are informed that, as far as this court is concerned, the questions referred at the instance of the Commissioner are concluded. As far as the common question for the two ...
Tag this Judgment!