Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-24-1973
Reported in : AIR1974All1b
..... restriction as to the kind of contract which it can make with its servants or the grounds on which it can dismiss them.109. in the case of life insurance corporation of india v. mukherjee : (1964)illj442sc the supreme court held that section 11(2) of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 was paramount and would override any provisions of the order passed by the central government if it was contrary to it. next would come the order and lastly the regulations ..... first two cases referred, that is of the principal of the vaish college and the teacher of dayanand college a claim has been made that the termination of their respective services by the management of the colleges concerned was in violation of the provisions of the acts and the statutes applicable to the university to which the colleges were affiliated. on the relevant dates when the termination orders were passed by the management of the respective colleges they stood affiliated to the meerut university. in the case of 1969 all lj 612 a division ..... the terms and conditions of the contract.42. to sum up this part of the case it is clear that section 25-c (2) of the agra act, (parallel section 28 (3) of the meerut act) and the statute 30 of chapter xviii of the agra university act are proprio vigore enforceable and any breach of any terms thereof will be breach of statute and not a breach of contract.43. the next important question that remains to be considered is the nature and status of the committee of management or the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-18-1973
Reported in : AIR1973SC855; [1973(26)FLR150]; (1973)ILLJ226SC; (1973)1SCC409; [1973]3SCR348; 1973(1)SLJ525(SC)
..... corporation case (supra) regulations framed under section 45 of the act were said by this court to be terms and conditions of service but the same did not constitute a statutory restriction as to the kind of contracts which the corporation could make with the servants or he ground on which it could terminate. the dismissal in that case was found to be wrongful and not to fall within the vice of infraction of statutory limitation or statutory obligation.24. this court in s. r. tewari v. district board agra : (1964)illj1sc , life insurance corporation ..... judgment against the order of dismissal or termination.21. in tyagi's case (supra) the warehousing corporation was competent to make regulations not inconsistent with the agricultural produce (development and warehousing) corporation act, 1956. the warehousing corporation framed regulations. regulation 11 dealt with termination of the service of an employee other than ..... statute which regulate the exercise of their power is invalid or ultra vires and the principle of pure master and servant contractual relationship has no application to such cases.25. in tewari's case (supra) this court said that dismissal, removal or reduction of an officer or servant might be effected ..... can be imposed either by a rule made in exercise of a statutory power or it may arise by implication when exercising a quasi-judicial functions.43. even when there was no specific rule on the subject, like rule 143 in the case before us, this court has held that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-08-1973
Reported in : AIR1973SC2524; [1973]89ITR236(SC); (1973)4SCC200; [1973]3SCR510
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 (to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The question referred to the High Court for its opinion reads:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assensee, having not been assessed to super-tax for the assessment year 1958-59, the unabsorbed reduction in rebate under Clause (i)(a) of the second proviso to Paragraph D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1957, could not be set off against the rebate available to the assessee under the Finance Act, 1959, and that accordingly the Income-tax Officer was not justified in reducing the rebate of Rs. 16,114/- available to the assessee for the assessment year 1959-602. Following its earlier decision in Commr. of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1971]80ITR408(Cal) , the High Court an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-30-1973
Reported in : [1974]96ITR101(P& H)
B.S. Dhillon, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Wealth-tax References Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1972. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these references are that Yuvraj Arnrinder Singh, who is an assessee in W. T. References Nos. 2 and 3 of 1972, and Princess Rupinder Kumari, who is an assessee in W. T. Reference No. 4 of 1972, are individual assessees. The dispute regarding the assessment of Yuvraj Amrinder Singh relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, for which the valuation dates, respectively, are March 31, 1964 and March 31, 1965, whereas the assessment year in the case of Princess Rupinder Kumari is 1965-66 and the valuation date is March 31, 1965. The assessees claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The value of the annuity policy in the case of Yuvraj Amrinder Singh is Rs. 2,13,000, whereas in the case of Princess Rupinder Kumari, the value of the annuity policy is Rs. 2,35,176. The assessees claimed that the amount of the annuity po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-13-1973
Reported in : (1974)ILLJ153Kant; (1973)2MysLJ76
Acts/Rules/Orders: Electricity Supply Act, 1948; Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952; Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 14(3), 19, 34 and 45(2); Companies Act; Life Insurance Corporation Act - Section 11(2); Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947; Land Acquisition Act; General Clauses Act - Section 3; Mysore Financial Code, 1958 - Rule 2; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 13(2), 14, 16, 19(1), 31, 46, 226, 298, 311(2) and 367OPINIONNarayana Pai, C.J.1. The question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench is : 'Whether the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution ?'. The referring Bench observes that the orders of this Court in two writ petitions, viz., V. H. Gokhale v. MSRTC, W.P. 2113/67, and Ramachandriah v. General Manager, MSRTC, W.P. 1258/67, which take the view that the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation cannot be regarded as a State for purposes of Art...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-02-1973
Reported in : AIR1973All516
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Life Insurance Corporation of India seeks that the orders dated 12th of June, 1970, passed by the State Government, dated 19th of November, 1969, passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad and the Government Order No. 6324E/XXXVIS-202-63 dated 3rd December, 1965 be quashed.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to two petitions are that the petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India is a tenant in premises No. 40, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad at monthly rent of Rs. 333.67 and is carrying on the Life Insurance business therein. Respondent No. 5, Sri K. S. Gandhi, is the landlord. The plot of land on which premises No. 40, Mahatma Gandhi Marg stands was held on lease by Sri K. S. Gandhi. Period of that lease has since expired. The State Government issued Government Order No. 6324-H/XXXVII-202-63, dated 3rd of December, 1965 laying down the principles for renewal of such leases. It provided...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-1973
Reported in : [1973(27)FLR207]; ILR1973Delhi29; 1974LabIC223
..... article 311, and the reference to article 12 was made only to distinguish the decision of the supreme court in the case of rajasthan state electricity board (supra). (43) in pramodrai shamaldas bhavsar v. life insurance corporation of india, : air1969bom337 , (28) the question arose as to whether the life insurance corporation was an 'authority' within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution. it was pointed out that the life insurance corporation is a statutory corporate body created under the life insurance act, 1956, and that a perusal of the provisions of the act shows clearly that the activity of the corporation is only business activity and it possesses no power which in any manner can be exercised to affect the activities of other citizens ..... of managing agents under the companies act, 1956, and the application of the provisions of the companies act to an industrial concern whose management has been taken over by the corporation. it may be noted that sections 28 and 30a to 30e only make the corporation a kind of preferred corporation in the matter of realization of its dues as compared with other companies incorporated under the companies act. the powers or functions of the corporation under the said sections are not, in our opinion, governmental powers or functions. shri jitendra sharma contended that the provisions in section 30a to 30e of the industrial finance corporation act, are similar to the provisions in section 18a to 18f of the industries (development .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-06-1973
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi15; 1974RLR145
ORDER1. One Shiv Lal Chopra insured his life with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and took out three Policies Particulars whereof are as under:Policy No, Date Place Amount 26988057 Dec. 1966 Kanpur 20,000,00 27061288 May 1967 Kanpur 20,000,00 8108987 Dec. 1967 Varanasi 25,000,002. Shiv Lal died on September 20, 1968 at Sopar in Bikar. His widow demanded the insurance money from the Life Insurance Corporation. The Life Insurance Corporation by their three letters dated February 20. 1970, repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on the around that Shiv Lal was suffering from heart ailment and consulted medical men and took treatment from them and did not disclose these facts in his statement and instead wave false answers. This was their reply with regard to two policies dated May, 1967 and December, 1967 which were taken at Kanpur and Varanasi. As regards the third policy taken out in December, 1966 from Kanpur the Corporation said that nothing was payable as Policy had lapsed by n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-22-1973
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ262Kant
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by a Division Bench under Section 7 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961:(1) Whether the regulations framed by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation regulating the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the chief executive officer, or general manager and the chief accounts officer under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, have statutory force? and(2) Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, to obey the regulations framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950?2. This writ petition had come up in the first instance before Malimath, J., who referred it to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Mysore High Court Act, as his Lordship noticed conflicting decisions of this Court on the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-20-1973
Sarma, J. 1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), namely Misc. Appeal (F) 37 and Misc. Appeal (F) 38 of 1968, arising out of Motor Accident Claims Cases Nos. 99 and 100, respectively, of 1966. which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 6-6-1968 by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Noweong. 2. The above two claims cases arose out of the same accident in which six persons travelling in a bus bearing No. ASA 3482 belonging to M/s. National Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) were killed, the bus being knocked off by the engine of a running train while crossing the railway lines at Noonmati Railway level crossing. The bus was engaged at that time by the B. O. C. (Pipe Line) Ltd. for transporting some of its employees residing in Gauhati town to and from their residence during the lunch hour and all the six victims were such employees. 3. It may be mentio...
Tag this Judgment!