Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-12-1977
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ211Mad
..... of art. it) of the constitution.29. point no. 1: the act (life insurance corporation act of j956) is an act to provide for the nationalisation of life insurance business in india by transferring all such business to a corporation establish-ed for the purpose and to provide for regulation and control of the business of the corporation and for matfers connected therewith or incidental thereto. by a notification this act came into force on 1st july, 1956. by virtue of section 3 of the act, the life insurance corporauon of india was established with effect from 1st of september, i9j6. the corporation is essentially a business organisation is evident by a reading of section 6 of the act. by the application of section 7 on 1-9-1956, a transfer of all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business ..... . instead an order could not be passed so to drastically affect the remuneration. where the officer is sought to be 4ealt with individually, of course, disciplinary action can be taken, but where a business organization like the life insurance corporation in the interest of the corporation and the policy-holders, effects a reduction' of the salaries or the terms and conditions it deals with a class of persons and not individually.43. the figures furnished in paragraph 21 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition show that it remained at the rate of rs. 25,000 per year between 1955-58. this only .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-22-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC1704; [1977]47CompCas677(SC); (1977)3SCC33; [1977]3SCR683; 1977(9)LC392(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. These are two appeals by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) with special leave obtained from this Court against a common judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of two appeals preferred by the Corporation. The appeals before the High Court arose out of two suits instituted by the Corporation. For the question that arises for determination, which we will presently state, it is not necessary to set out the facts in any great detail. One of the suits was brought in 1961 for recovery of a sum of about Rs. 17,000/-, after giving credit to the payments made by the defendants, due on a mortgage executed by the defendants in 1950 in favour of the Andhra Insurance Company of Masulipatnam. The other suit was filed in 1962 for recovery of about Rs. 45,555/- also due on a mortgage which was executed in 1952 by the defendants of this suit in favour of the Nagpur Pioneer Insurance Company Ltd., Bombay. Thus in both cases ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-03-1977
Reported in : [1978]113ITR37(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relates to the assessment year 1957-58 for which the relevant previous year ended on the 31st December, 1956,2. The assessce is an insurance company. On January 19, 1956, the management of its life insurance business vested in the Central Government under the provisions of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Ordinance '). From the 19th January, 1956, to 31st August, 1956, a Custodian was in the management, of the said life insurance business under the provisions of the Ordinance and the corresponding section of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956 (hereinafter stated as ' the Act '). The assessee was paid under Section 7 of the Act a compensation of Rs. 81,069 for the deprivation of the management of the said life insurance business for the aforesaid period when the Custodian was in the management of the said business. Thereafter, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-04-1977
Reported in : [1978]115ITR45(Bom)
Chandurkar, J. 1. The assessee in this case is the Life Insurance Corporation which is a statutory corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, with effect from September 1, 1956. Though the assessment year is 1963-64, for the purpose of assessment the inter-valuation period is the period from January 1, 1962, to March 31, 1963. Under the Life Insurance Corporation Act under section 7, it was provided that on the appointed day, which was September 1, 1956, there shall be transferred to and vested in the Corporation all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of all insurers. 'Controlled business', so far as the present reference is concerned, was the life insurance business. 2. Sub-section (2) of section 7 provides : 'The assets appertaining to the controlled business of an insurer shall be deemed to include all rights and powers, and all the property, whether movable or immovable, appertaining to his controlled business, including,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-08-1977
Reported in : [1979]119ITR900(Bom)
..... during the inter-valuation period of 15 months ended march 31, 1963, towards compensation payable under section 36 of the said life insurance corporation act to chief agents and special agents was not expenditure deductible under the provisions of sections 30 to 43 of the income-tax ac (3) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of rs. 1,31,71,276 being the portion of the surplus statutorily payable to the central government under section 28 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956, and so paid is a permissible deduction from the surplus disclosed for the inter-valuation period ended march 31, 196 ..... , that part of it must be deducted from the actual surplus for the purposes of r. 2(b). the provisions of the i. t. act and the provisions of s. 28 of the life insurance corporation act operate in entirely different fields. while s. 28 deals with allocation of the surplus and its application for different purposes, so far as the computation of income is concerned, that is a matter dealt with by rr. 2(b), 3 and 4 in the first schedule to the i. t. act. in view of the artificial mode of computation, unless there is a special power vested in the ito under the provisions of the i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-26-1977
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas327(P& H); [1979(38)FLR46]
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the Punjab National Bank, a nationalised bank. On December 6, 1974, the Assistant Regional Manager of the bank issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain alleged malpractices. It was stated in the notice that certain complaints had been received against the petitioner, that the complaints had been investigated by an inspector and that certain malpractices were noticed. The malpractices were stated to be as follows I'1. The undernoted borrowers have given written statements to the investigating officer, duly attested by Oath Commissioner, Mohindergarh, that they paid the amount, mentioned against each, to you as bribe for getting loan from the bank : Rs.(a) Ram Chander, son of RachpalSingh50(b) Bishan Lal, son of KaburChand150(c) Sant Lal, son of Jai Dayal75(d) Tirath Dass, son of HariChand90(e) Ratti Ram, son of KaburChand150Shri Mool Chand, son of Bi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-12-1977
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ364AP
Alladi Kuppuswami, J.1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are permanent workers of the respondent, Nellore Co-operative Spin ning Mills Ltd. The mill was closed on 24th May, 1975, until further notice on the ground that there was clash among the workers on the night of 23rd May, 1975 which resulted in the death of a worker and serious injuries to a number of workers, and the situation became tense, and the management felt that the normal working of the mill was likely to endager the person and property of the mill Thereafter by a G. O. Ms. No. 840 dated 27th August, 1975, a notification was published including the respondent-mill in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Relief Under takings (Special Provisions) Act XIX of 1971 (referred to in this judgment as the Relief Undertakings Act). Another notification was made on the same day in G.O. Ms. No. 842 declaring that the respondent-mill shall be deemed to be a relief undertaking. Another notification comprised in the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-06-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Cal221
ORDERManjula Bose, J. 1. One Radheshyam Roy, since deceased instituted this suit on Sept. 19, 1956 against the defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,000/- alleged to be due from Peerless Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company). 2. The case in the plaint is that the original plaintiff was the Managing Director of the said Insurance Company and that on account of paucity of funds he had not drawn his remuneration as Managing Director from Jan. 1943 till Dec. 1947. It is alleged that the Insurance Company by its resolution dated July 2, 1948 agreed and/or promised as follows: 'Resolved unanimously that the sum of Rs. 26,000/-, being the amount of remuneration foregone by the Managing Director Mr. R. Roy up to Dec., 1947, be paid to him in a lump sum or in one or more instalments in one or more years as and when the company is in a position to do so'. 3. It is further alleged that the Life Insurance Corporation of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-15-1977
Reported in : (1978)ILLJ71Cal
T.K. Basu, J.1. This is an application by Himangau Chakraborty and ten others challenging certain notifications issued by the respondents. The application is in a representative capacity and it may be mentioned that, at the time of the issue of the rule nisi, leave was granted by me under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Before I come to the impugned notifications it would be useful to deal with the background of this case3. As is well-known life insurance business in India was nationalised by virtue of the enactment of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Prior to the commencement of the Act, life insurance business was in the hands of private institutions whose volume of business varied to a considerable extent.4. It is in this background that Section 11 of the Act and Sub-section (2) thereof in particular was enacted, Section 11 of the Act in so far as is material for our purpose may be usefully set out hereinbelow:11(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-15-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Cal419
Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the decree-holder plaintiff arises out of an order passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore. The short fact arising out of an order is that there was an agreement between the Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd., and Gadadhar De of 3, Robinson Street, Calcutta and G. Dey and Co. and Union Estates Ltd., of 184, Dharmatola Street, Calcutta on or about 1949 and in the said agreement there was a clause for arbitration. It appears that Gadadhar and others took a loan for certain sum of money but as the arbitrator was appointed by the parties, the arbitrator gave an award to the effect that Rajasthan Insurance Co. Ltd., shall be entitled to the sum of Rs. 15,000/- as principal and Rs. 5140/- as the balance of interestaggregating the sum of Rs. 20,140/- as against the said Gadadhar De and the said sum of Rs. 20,140/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award until payment. It was further awarded that ...
Tag this Judgment!