Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-15-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Cal48
ORDERS.K. Hazra, J.1. This is an interlocutory application for injunction restraining the respondent No. 2, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinatfer called the L. I. C.) and its servants, agents, representatives, assigns, employees or otherwise from giving effect to or implementing the notice dated April 1 1972 and the enquiry report dated April 19, 1971 in any manner whatsoever pending the disposal of this suit. The notice dated April 1, 1972 is a show cause notice. By this notice the L. I. C. is calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service of the L.I.C.2. This show cause notice is given on the findings of the report of the enquiry officer dated April 9, 1971 that the petitioner is guilty of getting a cheque dated November 11, 1966 drawn by the L. I. C. in favour of the respondent No. 1 Shreeram Jauhar for Rs. 1,323.10 encashed through his personal bank account and misappropriating the proceeds of the cheque. On this finding, of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-08-1972
Reported in : AIR1972Raj317; 1972()WLN176
Kan Singh, J.1. The three appeals before me were called on for hearing together as they raise common questions of law. Appeal No, 53 of 1965 is by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Corporation', and has been lodged under Section 82 of the Employees Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', against the judgment of the Civil Judge. Jaipur City, dated 30-4-1965 disallowing certain claims for employees' contribution under the Act for a period anterior to 1-1-1959 namely, from 2-2-1956 to 31-12-1958. Appeal No. 54 of 1965 is again by the Corporation and is directed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 31-3-1965 disallowing certain claims. Appeal No. 58 of 1965 is by the Executive Engineer i.e., the employer awarding a decree in favour of the Corporation in respect of certain items of claim.2. I may narrate the facts with reference to Appeal No. 53 of 1965.3. The Corporation presented an application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-16-1972
Reported in : 1972WLN553
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As a common question of law arises in these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, they have been heard together at the request of the learned Counsel and will be disposed of by a single judgment.2. Petitioner Rameshwarlal (in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 70 of 1968) was an employee of the State Government as a lower Division clerk in the Rajasthan State Roadways Department. He passed the Accounts Clerk's qualifying Examination in 1964. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was constituted, and the petitioner's name appeared in the seniority list of the lower division clerks of the Corporation. He was selected for promotion as a Commercial Accounts Clerk, against a temporary post, by order Ex. 3 dated August 7, 1965, and was posted in that capacity at Udaipur. The State Government issued a notification on April 15, 1966 by which the employees were asked to exercise their option whether they wanted to continue in the service of the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-14-1972
Reported in : AIR1973SC250; 1973LabIC211; (1973)2SCC352; [1973]2SCR998; 1973(5)LC446(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, founded on the certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta, raises questions of interpretation of Section 3(2) of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1 of 1956, Section 11 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 31 of 1956 and Rule 12A of the Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956 made Under Section 48 of the said Act. 2. These questions arise in the following circumstances: Prior to January 1, 1956 the appellant was employed as the Principal Officer of die Bengal Insurance and Seal Property Co. Ltd., respondent 2 in this appeal. It was not disputed in the High Court that by Principal Officer the appellant meant that he was the Managing Director. His salary as such officer was Rs. 2630 per mensum which on and from January 1, 1956 was raised to Rs. 3000 per mensum. On January 19, 1956, respondent 2 issued in favour of the appellant four cheques for Rs. 5436-6-0 in all representing his salary for November and December 1955 and for cert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-04-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi180; [1974]44CompCas190(Delhi)
1. The plaintiff (Daulat Ram) is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,000/- on the insurance policy which has been taken by Smt. Chawli Devi being her adopted son he was the nominee of the policy. the policy was effective from 13-9-1955 in respect of which it is stated. that the respect of which it is stated. that the premiums due until the death of Smt Chawli Devi on 30-9-1956. had been paid.2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Commercial Sub Judge 1st Class. Delhi on 12-6-1961 on the grounds s that she had not insurable interest and that she ahd stated in the proposal the was literate and did not observe pardah, which statement had been proved to be incorrect. The suit was resisted by the Life Insurance Corporation. The successor- in interest of the Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd., also on the ground that she was suffering from diabetes which fact she had not disclosed the finding on this question of fact was in the favor of the plaintiff.3. The most important question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-13-1972
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ546Ker
P. Subramonian Poti, J.1. These are petitions by employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. In these petitions challenge is made to a notice issued under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 proposing change of conditions of service pursuant to a settlement reached between the Life Insurance Corporation and some employees of the trade unions representing certain classes of Corporation. The petitioner in O.P. No. 463 of 1972 (which petition I shall treat as the main petition for the purpose of this judgment) is a higher grade assistant in the Divisional Office at Trivandrum of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Petitioners in the other two petitions are in the cadre of assistants excepting the 5th petitioner in O.P. No. 6103 of 1971 who is a stenographer. The complaint in these petitions is about the change of service conditions effected by the Corporation which, according to the petitioners, has affected them prej...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-30-1972
Reported in : (1973)ILLJ87Mad
Ramaprasada, J.1. Writ Petition No. 825 of 1972 is by an association called the Higher Grade Assistants Association, in relation to the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. W.P. No. 826 of 1972 is by one Thomas Mathew, who is a higher grade assistant working in the Southern Zonal Office of the Life Insurance Corporation with headquarters at Madras. He claims that he is not a member of the 2nd petitioner-association during the material period to which the writ petition relates, and was not a member thereof. As an individual in the category of higher grade assistants he is aggrieved. In both the writ petitions, however, common questions arise.2. In W.P. No. 826 of 1972 the request is to direct the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, to hear and determine certain disputes which were left unresolved by it in a reference adjudicated upon under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is also the additional prayer that respondents 1 and 2, namely, the Life Insurance Cor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-25-1972
Reported in : (1973)ILLJ563Cal
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioner is a member of Class I staff of the Damodar Valley Corporation, at the material time being an Executive Engineer in the office of the General Superintendent, Transmission, Maithon. The petitioner was originally appointed as a direct 'recruit' on May 10, 1954, and thereafter, he was appointed in the permanent post of assistant engineer, electrical, with effect from March 1, 1960. This will also appear from paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition as also the annexure 'G' (letter of the corporation dated the 16th August, 1966). At the time the petitioner joined his service his date of birth was recorded on the basis of a birth certificate issued by the Rajpur Municipality as November 4, 1915. This date of birth was also accepted and recorded in the gradation lists subsequently published by the corporation from time to time.2. It appears that the petitioner on the requisition of the corporation forwarded to it his matriculation certificate which sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-28-1972
Reported in : [1973]87ITR602(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act is this :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the shares held by the assessee in the Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been valued in accordance with the Wealth-tax Act '2. The assessee held 50 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each in a public limited company called the ' Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd. ', which carried on business of motor and general insurance. The shares of the company are not quoted in the share market. As on the valuation dates, on March 31, 1960, and March 31, 1961, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, the assessee had valued these shares for the purpose of inclusion in his net wealth at their face value of Rs. 100 per share. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the said valuation. He worked out their value on the basis of the balance sheet of the company as on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-09-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Cal69
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner states that the petitioner under an actual user's import licence imported diverse consignments of G. P. Sheets which were duly landed from the relative vessels at the Port of Calcutta and thereafter taken charge of and stored in sheds and warehouses belonging to the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta who are the respondents to this application. Upon landing of the said goods the petitioner submitted through its clearing agents to the Customs Authorities, Calcutta, the relative bills of entry and complied with the Import Trade Control formalities for the clearance of the goods. But the clearance thereof was withheld. In consequence the goods remained for a considerable period of time in the custody of the respondent. Pending the Customs clearance of the goods the same were caused to be removed by the petitioner into the bonded warehouse and the last of suc...
Tag this Judgment!