Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-25-1968
Reported in : AIR1969Bom337; (1969)71BOMLR286; 1969MhLJ559
Patel, J.1. By this application the petitioner challenges an order of dismissal passed against him by the Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on December 11, 1965. The short facts leading to the present application need be stated.2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent the Life Insurance Corporation, which is a statutory corporate body created under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. On April 27, 1965 a charge-sheet was served upon him in respect of six items. Item no 1 was in connection with indiscipline and insubordination under Regulations 21 and 39 (1) of the Staff Regulations Charge No. 2 related to his calling a meeting of the Branch Of Office staff in the of Office premises after 5.30 p.m. without obtaining prior permission of the Branch Manager, Charge No. 3 related to his not accepting a letter dated November 9, 1964 addressed to him by the Branch Manager in relation to the meeting which was the subject-matter of Charge No. 2 Charge No. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-26-1968
Reported in : [1968]70ITR1(Bom)
..... renounced 'certain shall number of shares in favour of their relatives and friends and each one of them also sold large lost exceeding, 50,000 shares to the life insurance corporation of india at the rate of rs. 2 per right shares. the stock market quotation of the right share was however about rs. 4 per share during ..... v. stephen the question was whether in terms section 49, sub-section 2a(a), of the new south wales stamp duties act, 1896, a special power to appoint amongst a limited class granted by a document could come under that statute. the privy council held that, 'mere general language in a probate duty statute applicable to the property of deceased persons and to property ..... granting of the rights in the 'right shares' to export. 34. the position as it appears to us from this agreement and the facts and circumstances of the case is clear. the three mahindras between them owned 43.44% of the share capital. mr. parpia urged that really the three mahindras and the members of their families together owned 54% of the share capital of the company (vide paragraph 9 of ..... ' by the mahindra brother by their letter dated 9th october, 1957, was not only in consideration of the relinquishment to renouncement by willys and export of their rights under the agreement of 3rd december, 1956, but also in consideration of the valuable advantages, benefits and property to be received under the agreement of 9th october, 1957, between the company, willys and export. both the gift-tax officer and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-06-1968
Reported in : AIR1969AP328
Kondaiah, J.1. These three Writ Appeals by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board are preferred against the common order passed by Krishna Rao J., allowing the Writ petitions Nos. 754/66, 958/66 and 1151/66.2. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, the appellant herein, issued a Notification dated 15-11-65 calling for applications for 50 % of the post of Accountants in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board service, to be filled by direct recruitment, by advertisement in daily newspapers on 19-11-65. The direct recruitment was open to all the qualified candidates as per the advertisement i.e., outsiders as well as employees working in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, interviews by the Sub Committee have been made between 4-2-1966 and 17-2-1966, of all the candidates who had the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement. The selections were completed by 27-4-1966 and the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board approved the selections made by the Sub Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-1968
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ552Bom
..... . 1963 (52 of 1963), provides for initial capital of trust under s. 4. the industrial finance corporation act. 1948 [23 of 1948 (?)], refers to share capital and shareholders under s. 4. the food corporation act, 1964 (37 of 1964), refers to capital of the corporation under s. 5. in the same way the state bank of india act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the deposit insurance corporation act, 1961 (47 of 1961), and the oil and natural gas commission act, 1959 (43 of 1959), all refers to capital or share capital. on the other hand; the provisions of ss. 63 to 65 ..... . in this connection sri phadke relied upon s. 32 of the bonus act, which relates to certain classes of employees to whom the act is no applicable. he also extensively referred to the provisions of the electricity (supply) act, 1948, to buttress his contention. 2. section 2 of the bonus act is a defining section. clause (16) of s. 2 defines 'establishment in public sector' to mean an establishment owned, controlled or managed by (a) a government company as defined in s. 617 of the companies act, 1956; (b) a corporation in which not less than forty per cent of its capital is held (whether .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-30-1968
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT559
I.D. Dua, J.(1) The life Insurance Corporation of India has presented this revision under Section 35 of the Dei and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952 hereafter called the Act) against the order of the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers dated 5th April, 1.961 whereby he allowed the appeal from the order of a learned subordinate Judge 1st Class dated 2ath September , 1859 and dismissed the life Insurance Corporation's suit for ejectment which has been deereed by the trial Court. (2) The only question which fell for determination by the trial Court was whether P. Surie. the original tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation, had, by the agreement Exhibit D. 2, sublet, assigned or toherwise parted with possession of the whole or any part of the premis- es in question so as to have become liable to be evicted from the tenan- ted premise under section 13(1) Proviso (b)(i) of the Act. The trial Court en a consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-26-1968
Reported in : (1969)10GLR687
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These two petitions challenge an order of requisition dated 11th July 1967 issued by the Collector of Bulsar purporting to requisition a building known as 'Mohan Smruti' situate on Mahatma Gandhi Road within the municipal limits of Balsar, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 6 Sub-section (4) Clause (a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. The petitioners in these two petitions and three other persons carried on business as partners in the firm name and style of Messrs. Dinesh, Mukesh & Company (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner firm). The petitioner firm started constructing a building called 'Mohan Smruti' on Mahatma Gandhi Road within the municipal limits of Bulsar. When the construction of the building was about to be completed, there were negotiations between Manilal Bhulabhal Solanki, petitioner in Petition No. 1095 of 1967, and the Life Insurance Corporation for letting out the building to the Life Insurance Corporation. Whilst the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-13-1968
Reported in : [1968]38CompCas767(All)
Dwivedi, J.1. Vaid Mahesh Chandra Shastri is the appellant in this appeal. His wife, who died on May 21, 1959, was called Pushpa Devi. They together obtained two policies of life insurance on their joint lives from the respondent, the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The policies commenced from November 18 and December 28, 1958, respectively. They were for Rs. 10,000 each.2. After the death of his wife, the appellant claimed the amount of the policies from the respondent. He submitted his claim on August 17, 1959. But on July 28, 1961, the respondent repudiated the claim. Hence the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted for the recovery of the amount due under the two policies.3. The respondent contested the suit on various grounds. The civil judge dismissed the suit. It is unnecessary to reproduce all his findings. The arguments in appeal have converged on three of his findings. And we shall summarise them here : (1) Section 45 of the Insurance Act applies to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-1968
Reported in : AIR1969SC530; (1969)ILLJ719SC; [1969]1SCR366
J.M. Shelat, J.1. In Civil Appeal No. 1630 of 1987, workmen engaged by certain chillies and kirana shops in Madras and who were members of the respondent Union made a demand on December 13, 1965 for bonus for the year 1964-65 equivalent to four months' wages. Conciliation proceedings having failed, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. In Civil Appeal No. 1721 of 1967, the appellant company is admittedly an establishment in public sector to which section 20 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 21 of 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) does not apply. In both these cases, the Tribunals held that though the Act did not apply, in the first case by reason of Section 1(3) and in the other by reason of section 32(x), the employees were entitled to claim bonus and awarded their claims in C. A. No. 1630 of 1967. These appeals by special leave challenge the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunals as to the scope and nature of the Act.2. The question for decision in b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-31-1968
Reported in : [1969]72ITR319(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding accounting year ended on the 30th June, 1957. On April 18, 1950, the respondent purchased 19,540 preference shares and 5,085 ordinary shares of Messrs. Muir Mills Ltd. for Rs. 87,05,000.00 at an auction sale held by the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. During the relevant accounting year the respondent sold 4,402 preference shares and 549 ordinary shares. Since Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was operative with regard to sates of capital assets after the 31st March, 1956, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice requiring the assessee, that is the respondent, to furnish particulars of the shares sold and the capital gains made. The assessee, in reply, claimed a loss of Rs. 1,03,994.00 which included an expenditure of Rs. 1,00,721'00 incurred by the assessee in litigation in respect of 549 ordinary shares and 4,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-01-1968
Reported in : AIR1969Cal149,74CWN1,(1970)ILLJ707Cal
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. This Rule involves a dispute between two sections of the subordinate employees in the office of the Director-General of Ordnance Factories, represented by two Unions.2. The Petitioner is the Employees' Association which represents employees other than stenographers. The 'Stenographers' Association' has been added as Respondent No. 3 at their intervention. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and Respondent No. 2 is the Director-General of Ordnance Factories.3. According to the Petitioner Association, the Stenographers are outside the clerical cadre: that there is no Rule authorising the promotion of Stenographers to the grade of Assistants and that the Stenographers had no higher prospects in their career. Administratively, however. Respondents reserved a post of Assistant-in-Charge to be filled up from the cadre of Stenographers of Grade 13 and on the protest of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 stated that it was only a 'non-recurring measure' (Annexure A) which h...
Tag this Judgment!