Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-24-1981
Reported in : (1982)1CompLJ52(Cal),[1981]131ITR578(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. In this appeal, the revenue has challenged the propriety of the judgment of R. M. Datta J. : [1978]112ITR111(Cal) whereby the learned judge has made the rule nisi obtained by the respondent No. 1, Smt. Bani Roy Chowdhury, on her application under Article 226 of the Constitution, absolute.2. By a registered conveyance dated December 11, 1972, the respondent No. 1 purchased from the respondent No. 4, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, two plots of laud being plots Nos. 29/NA (E. P.) and 29/NA (W. P.) of Block B of the New Alipore Development Scheme, measuring 7 cottahs, at Rs. 5,000 per cottah. In the conveyance, the respondent No. 5, Hindusthan Building Society Ltd., was the confirming party. The said Society having been the controlled business of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., its assets and liabilities were transferred to and vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the appointed day, namely, September 1, 1956, by virtue of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-28-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC1126; (1982)ILLJ110SC; (1982)1SCC205; [1982]2SCR246
A.C. Gupta and R.S. Pathak, JJ.1. The validity of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981 and the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 which preceded it is challenged in this batch of writ petitions. The writ petitions have a history behind them which can be conveniently divided into three chapters. However, it will be easier to follow this history if we refer to some of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 first The Life Insurance Corporation was constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 to provide for the nationalisation of life insurance business in India by transferring all such business to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Under Section 11(1) of the Act the services of the employees of insurers whose business has vested in the Corporation are transferred to the Corporation. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides:Where the Central Government is satisfied that for the purpose of securing u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1981
Reported in : AIR1981AP125
..... life insurance corporation act, from which it appeared that the central government had contributed the original capital, that, part of the profit of the corporation goes to the government, that, the central government exercises control over the policies of the corporation; that, the corporation carries on a business having great public importance; and that, the corporation enjoys a monopoly hi the business, and concluded on this basis that the corporation is an agency or an instrumentality of the state. the same conclusion was also recorded with respect to the other two corporations ..... corporation incorporated under the provisions of the indian companies act, 1956, may be a private limited company or a public limited company, or a government company as defined in section 617. a corporation may be brought into existence by a statute, which is generally referred to as a statutory corporation. a corporation ..... applicable ..... life insurance corporation is owned by the government. the life insurance business is nationalised and vested in the corporation. no other insurer can carry on life insurance business. the management is by the government. the dissolution can be only by the government.the industdial finance corporation ..... corporation ..... corporation ..... corporation ..... corporations ..... corporation, and that ..... corporation ..... act ..... corporation ..... act ..... corporation ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the irrigation corporation ..... corporation ..... corporation ..... corporation ..... corporations ..... corporation ..... corporation ..... act. ..... corporations ..... corporation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-09-1981
Reported in : (1982)1GLR1
Mankad, J.1. Common question which arises for our consideration in these references under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is whether the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of a loan taken from the Life Insurance Corporation, which is secured on a life insurance policy while computing his net wealth. This question arises in the context of the provision contained in sub-clause (ii) of clause (m) of s. 2 of the Act. 2. The assessee in each of these references holds a life insurance policy. He took a loan on the security of a life insurance policy. It was claimed that while computing his net wealth, this loan amount should be deducted from the aggregate value of all his assets. The wealth-tax authorities and the Tribunal negatived this claim, taking the view to the effect that as the debt in question was secured on the property in respect of which wealth-tax was not chargeable, it could not be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-07-1981
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi36; [1983]54CompCas842(Delhi); 20(1981)DLT165; ILR1981Delhi315; 1981RLR543
M.L. Jain, J. (1) Suadrshan Kumar Sehgal took out three policies of insurance on his life, two in 1958 and one in 1959 in which he nominated his father Dwarka Dass Sehgal under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (herein called 'the Act'). He was married in 1964. He took out the fourth policy in 1966 but this time he nominated his wife, Mrs. Uma Sehgal. He died in 1968 leaving his heirs Mrs. Uma Sehgal, his minor son Sunil and his mother Mrs. Vidya Wati Sehgal. The money of the last policy was received by the widow. She filed on January 2. 1970 a suit on behalf of herself and her minor son to recover 213th share in the amount of the first three policies against Dwarka Dass Sehgal, his wife Vidya Wati and the Life Insurance Corporation. The amount appears to have been paid by the said Corporation on January 10, 1970 to the nominee. Dwarka Dass Sehgal contends that he was entitled to receive the policy money absolutely on the grounds- (A)that he had paid the premiums, (B)that he was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-1981
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas187(Delhi); [1984]145ITR520(Delhi)
Sachar, J. (1) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether before initiating proceedings under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1,971 (hereinafter to be called the 1971 Act) the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as LIC) is required under law to seek leave of the winding up Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act 1956 (2) Winding up proceedings were started against M/s. Asia Udyog (P) Ltd. It is common case that an order for wading up had been passed on 2-2-1978 and the winding up proceedings are pending in this court. The company was admittedly a tenant of the premises at 8, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The said premises also admittedly belong to LIC. 1971 Act defines 'Public Premises' and it is common case of the parties that the premises in dispute are covered by the definition of Section 2(c) of 1971 Act. (3) 'THE case of the Lic is that because of the various unlawful acts done by the company its possession was unau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-05-1981
Reported in : (1982)28CTR(Guj)123; [1982]135ITR182(Guj)
MANKAD J. - Common question which arises for our consideration in these references under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is whether the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of a loan taken from the Life Insurance Corporation, which is secured on a life insurance policy while computing his net wealth. This question arises in the context of the provision contained in sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (m) of s. 2 of the Act.The assessee in each of these references holds a life insurance policy. He took a loan on the security of a life insurance policy. It was claimed that while computing his net wealth, this loan amount should be deducted from the aggregate value of all his assets. The wealth-tax authorities and the Tribunal negatived this claim, taking the view to the effect that as the debt in question was secured on the property in respect of which wealth-tax was not chargeable, it could not be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets of assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1981
Reported in : (1982)ILLJ224AP
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. Writ Petitions Nos. 3477, 3459 respondent-Corporation, viz., the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation - a corporation created not by a statute but incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Before the learned Judges it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that an earlier Bench decision in W.P. No. 5904 of 78, dated 8th December, 1979, was not correctly decided. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, [1979-II L.L.J. 217], and the opinion of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, [1980-II L.L.J. 222]. When the matter came up before the Full Bench on 24th November, 1980, it was brought to our notice that the Supreme Court has dealt with this very question in a writ petition relating to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and it would be advisable for this Bench to await a copy of the decision in that case. According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-20-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Kant193
..... of the central government, determine the number of shares which may, respectively, be distributed among---(a) the state government,(b) the reserve bank,(ba) the development bank, (c) scheduled banks, insurance companies, including the life insurance corporation of india established under section 3 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956, investment trusts, co-operative banks or other financial institutions, and(d) parties other than those referred to in clauses (a), (b), (ba) and (c):provided that the number of shares which ..... 1) whether the state legislature has competence to enact the karnataka public moneys (recovery of dues) act. 1979 ?(2) whether the karnataka act prevails over the central act, viz., the state financial corporations act, 1951?(3) whether section 3 of the karnataka act has to be struck down as unconstitutional because it does not provide for the application of principles of natural justice before certifying the loan ?(4) whether the managing director has ..... of the state financial corporations act, 1951. it is covered under entries 43 and 45 of schedule vii, list i, of the constitution. the said act contains provisions about the recovery of loans also.7. section 29 of the state financial corporations act, 1951, speaks of rights of financial corporation in case of default. section 30 contains power to call for repayment before agreed period. section 31 contemplates the special, provisions for enforcement of claims by financial corporation. it reads:'(1 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-24-1981
Reported in : [1983]141ITR472(Guj)
Thakkar, J.1. Five question have been referred to this court for its opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B'. Out of these five questions, four questions are already concluded by decisions of this court and only one question, namely, question No. 4, is res integra. The said question has been referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and it reads thus : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that since the assessee has suffered a loss in the assessment year 1968-69 and since there was no liability to basic tax, the question of levy of additional tax in respect of excess dividends did not arise under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1968, for the assessment year 1968-69 ?' 2. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a company which falls within the description of a 'domestic company' as specified in Para. F mentioned in the First Schedule to s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1968. It is provided therein that t...
Tag this Judgment!