Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-03-1962
Reported in : [1963]48ITR464(Bom)
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). We are here concerned with assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, the corresponding account years being those ending with 31st August, 1955, and 31st August 1956, respectively. The assessee is private limited company, which at one time was carrying on the business of manufacture time before August 1, 1949, the labour working in the factory made terms of the demands made by the labour. It appears that some certain demands and the Industrial Tribunal had made an award in terms of the demands made by the labour. The assessee anticipating that it would not be profitable to work the factory if those demands were to be satisfied, closed its business on August 1, 1949, and commenced doing the business of importing trimobiles, clocks and cement and deal in those goods. This new business was commenced before the year ended August 31, 1949. In April, 1950, the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-30-1962
Reported in : AIR1962Cal625,66CWN774
..... . section 3(1) of the act provides that on and from the appointed date the management of the controlled business of all insurers shall vest in the central government. then came the life insurance corporation act of 1956. section 7(1) of this act prescribes that on the appointed day, that is, on the day of the establishment of the life insurance corporation under the provisions of the act, there shall be transferred to and vested in the corporation all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of all insurers. the life insurance corporation has been made a party to the suit by an amendment and is now the defendant no. 3.25. the effects of these provisions have been considered by the allahabad high court in madan mohan v. omprakash : air1957all384 . an application ..... by a responsible railway officer that all the elements constituting the liability of the railway had been admitted in this letter. in the instant case it has to be seen whether the letter of the 6th/7th january, 1954 contains admission of facts of which the liability in question is a necessary consequence.43. the next case relied on was the judgment of bose, j. (as his lordship then was) in hindusthan housing and development trust ltd. v. state of west bengal, 59 cal wn 405 -- this was acase for recovery of compensation for requisitioned properties. his lordship was of opinion that article 120 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC1171; [1963]33CompCas513(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR971
..... . 56,36,815 (1946-50) and rs. 87,03,650 (1951-53). 16. before we enter into a discussion of the terms of the first schedule of the life insurance corporation act, 1956, laying down the principles for determination of compensation we shall summarise in the form of a formula what is admittedly the purport of these principles applicable to this case. this formula is :- annual average of thesurplus deemed to be average business incompensation allocated to the share force during 1950-55payable. = 20x holders as disclosed x --------------------in ..... a government, means the amount lying to the credit of that business on the appointed day.' 3. sections 7 and 10(2) conferred on the central government special rule-making powers and inter alia for the allocation of the paid-up capital or assets representing such paid-up capital, as the case may be, between the controlled business of the insurer and any other business. in pursuance of these provisions and s. 48 of the act the life insurance corporation rules, 1956, were framed by the central government and rule 18 provided for allocation of the paid-up ..... annual average calculated as suggested by the company of thetwo sums allocated as suggested by the company).2,81,841 4,35,18220 (------- + -------- x 1/2) x 1.389708573 years 2 years= rs. 43,29,470formula b(based on annual average calculated as suggested by the corporationof the two sums allocated as suggested by the company).2,81,841 4,35,18220 (------- + --------) x 1.389708573 years 2 years .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-18-1962
Reported in : AIR1964Mad24
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The appellants in the above appeals are employees under the Life Insurance Corporation of India and they have appealed from the judgment of Rajagopalan, J. rejecting their applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent (Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Zonal Manager) to reinstate them to the same office with all rights and privileges attached thereto respectively held by them in the various insurance units before their integration into the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The appellants claim that they had been appointed by the various business insurance companies prior to their integration with the Insurance Corporation of India, as administrative and supervisory officers but that after the Corporation came into being they were demoted to the position of field officers contrary to the statutory guarantee contained in Section 11(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-12-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC1083; [1963]2SCR56
Sarkar, J.1. The Andhra Insurance Company Ltd., hereafter called the insurer, carried on life insurance and other insurance business. On September 1, 1956, the life insurance business of the insurer became vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The insurer thereupon became entitled to compensation from the Life Insurance Corporation under s. 16 of the Act. 2. On February 19, 1957, the Corporation having determined the amount of the compensation and obtained the Central Government's approval made an offer of it to the insurer as provided in s. 16. By the letter making the offer, the Corporation claimed various deductions, The insurer raised certain disputes. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to refer to these disputes. 3. On August 6, 1957, the insurer made an application to the Tribunal which had been constituted on May 25, 1957 for an order for re-assessment of the compensation payable to it....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-08-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC900; [1963]33CompCas289(SC); [1963]48ITR144(SC); [1963]Supp(1)SCR980
..... was resisted by the appellant. this dispute was taken to the life insurance tribunal for decision under the act of 1956 and this tribunal decided it in favour of the respondent corporation. the present appeal is against the judgment of the tribunal. 3. the provisions of the income-tax act under which the right to refund arose have to be briefly referred to before we proceed to consider the questions that arise in this appeal. section 16(2) states that for the purpose of inclusion in the total income of an assessee, dividend paid to him shall be increased to such amount as would, if income-tax at the rate applicable to the total income of the company were ..... as earlier mentioned were the deductions under s. 18(3) of the income-tax act and the amount added to the dividend under s. 16(2) of that act. 6. the respondent corporation claimed to be entitled to a refund of rs. 9,622.43 out of the amount found refundable for 1955-56 and rs. 48,271.56 out of the amount refundable for 1956-57 under the provisions of s. 7 of the act of 1956. as we have earlier stated the tribunal allowed this claim of the corporation. now, s. 7 is in these terms : s. 7. (1) on the appointed day .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-15-1962
Reported in : AIR1962SC814; [1962]32CompCas177(SC); [1962]Supp2SCR571
S.K. Das, J.1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The appellant is Mithoolal Nayak, who took an assignment on October 18, 1945 of a life insurance policy on the life of one Mahajan Deolal for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in circumstances which we shall presently state. Mahajan Deolal died on November 12, 1946. Thereafter, the appellant made a demand against the respondent company for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and odd on the basis of the life insurance policy which had been assigned to him. This claim or demand of the appellant was repudiated by the respondent company by a letter dated October 10, 1947, which in substance stated that the insured Mahajan Deolal had been guilty of deliberate mis-statements and fraudulent suppression of material information in answers to questions in the proposal from and the personal statement, which formed the basis of the contract between the insurer and the insured. On the repud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-11-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC1185; [1963]33CompCas420(SC); [1963]Supp2SCR887
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal from the order dated December 20, 1958, of the Life Insurance Tribunal in case No. 21/XV of 1958. 2. The United India Life Assurance Company Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Company' - incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, with the principal object of carrying on life insurance business in all its branches was registered as an insurer under the Life Insurance Act, VI of 1938 for carrying on life insurance business in India. On July 15, 1955, at an extraordinary General Meeting of the shareholders of the Company, the following resolution, amongst others, was passed :- 'Resolved that a donation of Rs. 2 lakhs be sanctioned from out of the Shareholders' Dividend Account to the M.Ct.M. Chindambaram Chettyar Memorial Trust proposed to be formed with the object, inter alia, of promoting technical or business knowledge, including knowledge in insurance. Resolved further that the Directors be and are hereby authorised to pay the aforesaid sum to the Tru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-04-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Mys64; ILR1962KAR567
B.M. Kalagate, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, against the decree dated 25th November 1960, passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 263 of 1959, by which he reversed the decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. The question involved in this appeal is whether the adjustment or appropriation made by defendant 1 is legal and valid. It arises in this way.3. The plaintiff was working as an agent for the Asiatic Government Security Life and General Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore City. With effect from 1-9-1956 this Company was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The plaintiff was a debtor to the Asiatic Government Security Life and General Assurance Company Limited under a compromise decree dated 8th June 1953 in O. S. 256/51-52 for a sum of Rs. 3,106-11-6.Subsequent thereto, a sum of Rs. 600/- due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-27-1962
Reported in : AIR1963Cal421,[1963(6)FLR378],(1963)IILLJ569Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. These two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were by consent directed to be heard together because they raise the same points of controversy. There is a minor difference between them but that is not very material and I shall deal with that difference later on. 2. The petitioners are drivers employed under the Durgapur Steel Project under the Hindusthan Steel Limited. The first petitioner in Rule No. 4052 of I960 was appointed on the 1st April, 1957 pursuant to an offer made on the 26th March. His services were terminated on the 20th June, 1959. He did not obtain the Rule until as late as 19th September, 1960. The petitioner in the other Rule, Bimal Chandra Majumdar was appointed on the 21st September, 1957 on an offer made on the llth September 1957. His services were terminated on the 14th April, 1959. He did not obtain this Rule until 17th January, 1S61. Delay has been urged as a ground in both the cases on which it has been contended that th...
Tag this Judgment!