Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-01-1974
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ122
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. These two appeals, arising out of O.P. No. 4 of 1971 and O.P. No. 53 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore, involve common questions of law.2. In C.M.A. No. 475 of 1971, the appellant, a former President of the Kizhchettipattu Panchayat Board, was surcharged by the Auditor, by his order dated 30th September, 1970 a sum of Rs. 649-71P. on the ground the appellant had not spent the entire sum of Rs. 3,089-15P. drawn by him from the Panchayat funds for road Work, but had spent only Rs. 2,439-44P. and consequently, the appellant had to make good the loss of Rs. 649-71P. caused to the Panchayat. In C.M.A. No. 476 of 1971, the appellant, who was the President of Ammoor Panchayat from 1958 to 1965, was surcharged by the Auditor a sum of Rs. 715-73P by his order dated 28th June, 1970 on the ground the appellant had not brought into account the usufructs of some tamarind trees belonging to the Panchayat which had been taken on l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC794; 1974CriLJ678; (1974)4SCC230; [1974]3SCR348
M.H. Beg, J. 1. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness of the case for appeal to this Court granted by the Calcutta High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.2. The Respondent was tried by a Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act XXI of 1949 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which empowers the Special Court, set up under it. to try offences mentioned in the Scheduled annexed to the Act. Item 2 of the schedule is:An offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. if committed by a public servant or by a person dealing with property belonging to government as an agent of government in respect of property with which he is entrusted or over which he has domain in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as such agent. 3. The proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act reads as follows:Provided that when trying any case, a Special Court may also try any offence other than an offence specified in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-19-1974
Reported in : [1975]99ITR243(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These two references relate to the same assessee but in respect of two different assessment years. The first reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64, and the second relates to the assessment year1964-65. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in motor and general insurance. The previous years relevant to the assessment years in question are calendar years 1962 and 1963, respectively. In respect of these assessment years the assessee filed the returns of income showing income from different sources separately. The total of such income for the assessment year 1963-64 came to Rs. 22,15,583. This income included a sum of Rs. 4,85,802 being the income from dividends from other companies. The assessee claimed that it is entitled to a rebate of Corporation tax at 45% on this dividend income as per the Finance Act, 1963. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that, since in the case of an insurance company the entire income is assessed as from bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-20-1974
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR581
..... and their nominees. after giving hearing to the concerned parties and on the material before it, the company law board by its order dated june 30, 1971, acting under section 408 of the companies act, appointed two government directors viz. t.a. pai, the then chairman of the life insurance corporation of india, and k.c. raman on the board of directors of the company for a period of two years in the interest of the company, its shareholders and also in the interest of the public ..... of the industrial credit and investment corporation of india ltd., naval tata was an independent director and rasiklal j. chinai belonged to the chinai group.18. the said application made by the 117 shareholders for continuance of the government directors under section 408 of the companies act, 1956, set out in detail a part of the contents of the previous order made by the company law board on may 7, 1971 in respect of the application under sections 409 and 250 of the companies act, 1956, holding that the shares held ..... the board was to be in accordance with the said order and the said order was automatically incorporated as rule 3.43. the effect of the said rules of procedure made under section 10e(5), read along with the said order dated july 13, 1972, which was incorporated in the said rule 3, evidently was that the powers exercisable and functions to be discharged under section 408 of the companies act by the government, as in this case, were required to be exercised only by the board, i.e., jointly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-26-1974
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ501Del
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court can order the enforcement of certain public law rights (as distinguished from private law rights, e.g., rights based on contracts). Can such a right arise out of an administrative scheme or instructions (as distinguished from 'law' or orders having the force of law) issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (as contrasted with the Government) with respect to a class of its employees Can this Court review administrative action by the Chairman of the Corporation withdrawing such scheme or instructions without authority These would appear to be the ultimate issues arising in this writ petition in the back-ground of the following facts and law.2. The Corporation (respondent 1) was established by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to carry on the business of life insurance as a monopoly on business principles (Section 6). It can act itself Section 4 or through committees Section 19. It has power to appoint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-19-1974
Reported in : (1975)ILLJ110Cal
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji delivered on February 13, 1973, on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant challenges an order of dismissal made on the 20th April, 1968, by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India. The appellant was originally an employee of an Insurance Company. After the coming into operation of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the appellant became an employee of the Corporation by virtue of Section 11 of the Act.3. Before the order of dismissal an enquiry was made into certain alleged charges against the appellant. The appellant was found guilty and the order of dismissal was passed. He preferred an appeal to the appropriate authority. The appeal was rejected.4. The appellant in paragraph 21 of his petition before the trial Court has stated that in conducting the enquiry there were violations of the principles of natural justice. The appellant conten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1974
Reported in : AIR1974Raj212
Gupta, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a motor accident, which took place on May 3, 1966, Shri Rajbahadur Singh reached Kota Junction on the fateful morning by train and took a cycle rickshaw from the railway station to go to Bundi bus stand at Kota in order to catch the bus for Bundi. He had been selected at a competitive examination for the Rajasthan Judicial Service, occupying the fifth position ,and after undergoing the necessary training at Alwar, he was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Bundi. It was his first assignment in the State service and he was to join his duties as a Munsif Magistrate on May 3, 1966, at Bundi. But destiny willed otherwise and while the rikshaw in which Shri Rajbahadur Singh was sitting, was proceeding from Brij Talkies crossing on the slope leading towards the Bundi bus stand, a passenger bus, bearing registration No. RJR 915 came from behind. The bus collided in the first instance with Jeep No. DLJ 1329, which was at that time parked towards the left si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN36
..... section 95(2)(b)(i) of the motor vehicles act have the effect of limiting the liability of the insurer in respect of a policy of insurance to rs. 20,010/- and there is no basis for the submission of the leraned counsel for the corporation that the aforesaid limited liability should be shared by by the corporation along with the indian mercantile insurance co. ltd. the vehicle in question was insured with the life insurance corporation of india under a policy of insurance and the liability of the corporation ..... insurance policy with the indian mercantile insurance company. ltd. was issued on 3rd may, 1956 but the period of insurance was inadvertently mentioned therein as commencing from 2nd may, 1986 and further the fact that the vehicle in question was already insured with the life insurance corporation, was not disclosed to the inspector of the aforesaid company and the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance ..... singh was sitting, was being driven rashly and negligently, as it was proceeding with great speed and it was on account of the sudden application of brakes by the rikshaw puller that the rikshaw received a jolt and overturned and shri rajbahadur singh was thrown out resulting in his ..... either that the judge acted on some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or to very small as to make it, in the judgment of this court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.43. on this subject lord wright .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-20-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN176
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. The six petitioners before us are Railway servants who were removed/dismissed from service because each one of them was convicted for an offence by a criminal court. They complain that notwithstanding the fact that they were given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter called 'the Probation Act') they have been removed or dismissed. They have challenged their order of removal/dismissal on the grounds that it was contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation Act or at any rate inconsistent with the objects of that statute & that it is violative of the principles of natural justice as they were never heard before removal or dismissal. The learned Single Judge, before whom these petitions were presented, found it necessary to refer these cases to a Division Bench because Tyagi, J. in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 481, 482 516, 517 and 600 of 1966 by his judgment dated December 19, 1969, had held that even in a case covet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-29-1974
Reported in : [1977]106ITR969(Bom)
Desai, J. 1. This is a reference made to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', Bombay, by its order dated 19th February, 1965. 2. As we felt that the question referred by the Tribunal to us as a question of law arising from its order dated 25th April, 1960, did not bring out precisely and accurately the question for our consideration, the same was re-framed by us as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,646 in arriving at the assessee's total income ?' 3. A few facts may be stated : The assessee-company, which is carrying on the business of insurance other than life insurance, claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,045 as loss arising from the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee during the calendar year 1955, being the previous year for the assessment year 1956-57. The contention of the assessee was that the balance due to the head office of the company at Bombay from their Karachi branch un...
Tag this Judgment!