Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-07-1990
Reported in : (1991)IILLJ226Ker
Radhakrishna Menon, J.1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, for short the Corporation, is the petitioner.2. Ext.P1 order of the first respondent is under challenge. Gist of this order given in Ext. P2 reads:-'It is hereby informed that orders have been passed in the above case. As per the order, the respondent is directed to reinstate the appellant in service with backwages of Rs. 29,552/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand five hundred and fifty two) for the period from 2-9-87 to the date of this order. In the event of failure to comply with the above directions, the appellant will be paid a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only). The above directions shall be complied with by the respondent within 30 days of receipt of the gist of this order, failing which steps will be taken to recover the same under Revenue Recovery Act, with 9% compound interest during the period of default'.Facts relevant and requisite to dispose of the dispute lie in a narrow compass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-20-1990
Reported in : [1993]201ITR716(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, for the purpose of computing the fair market value of the capital asset of the assessee under Section 55(2) Of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the surplus to be taken into consideration was 3V: per cent., which was the minimum permissible under Explanation 2 to paragraph 1 of Part A of the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and not the surplus allocated by the assessee to the shareholder during the relevant period ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 55(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was improvement in the capital asset of the assessee after January 1, 1954 ? 3. Whether there was any evidence to support th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-06-1990
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas872(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. The company petition was admitted on May 12, 1989, and it was directed that the same be advertised and published. Under the present order, the application dated August 11, 1989, filed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short 'RIICO') seeking leave of the court to remain out of the winding up proceedings, is to be disposed of.2. RIICO is a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), and the entire shareholding of RIICO is held and controlled by the Government of Rajasthan. It paid three loans, being the first loan of Rs. 16.50 lakhs, the second loan of Rs. 10.58 lakhs and the third loan of Rs. 0.25 lakhs, total Rs. 27.33 lakhs to Asup Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., respondent-company. The said loans were secured by the respondent-company by mortgage and hypothecation of its existing and future assets with RIICO. The aforesaid loans were secured by equitable mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-07-1990
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
..... no. 1 in the writ petition) was in occupation of a part of the said property as a tenant under m/s. bharat insurance co. ltd. since 1948. the life insurance business was nationalised under the life insurance corporation act, 1956 whereby the life insurance corporation was established and the life insurance business carried on by the various insurance companies, including m/s. bharat insurance company ltd., was nationalised and vested in the life insurance corporation. as a result petitioner no. 1 became a tenant of the life insurance corporation. the life insurance corporation gave a notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act terminating a tenancy of petitioner no. 1 with effect from, august 31, 1953 and thereafter proceedings for eviction were ..... have been made for summary trial of certain applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. chapter iv (sections 26 to 29) contains provisions relating to deposit of rent. chapter v (sections 30 to 34) contains provisions relating hotels and lodging houses. chapter vi (sections 35 to 43) contains provisions relating to appointment of controllers and their powers and functions and appeals. section 42 makes provisions for execution of orders passed by the controller or in appeal, as a decree of civil court. section 43 attaches finality to the order passed by the controller and the order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-1990
Reported in : (1991)ILLJ62Mad
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. Appellants were the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7557 of 1984. Appellants 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of some deceased employees of the respondent-management. They sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-management to release and settle the withheld payments of death benefits due to them as dependents of the deceased employees, and to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 each together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent annum calculated from the due date. The writ petition was resisted and by judgment dated 14th December, 1984, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Seven employees viz., (1) Shanmugam (2) G. Kulandaiswamy (3) R. Selvanathan (4) R. Mariappan (5) Sambandam (6) C. Chellappan and (7) Md. Usman died while in the service of the management-respondent on 26th June 1977, 8th May 1982, 30th October 1983, 2nd October 1983, 27th December 1983, 30th August 1983...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-15-1990
Reported in : (1990)2CALLT102(HC),94CWN393
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. In order to appreciate the issues arising for decision in this Contempt Petition, it is necessary to set out the facts in. some detail.2. The petitioners are the owners of a property being land with superstructures bearing premises No. 14, Ballygunge Park, Calcutta. They intended to demolish the existing super-structures and to raise a twelve storied residential building on the said premises. They, therefore, submitted the requisite sets of Building Plans for sanction to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation Authorities', on or about August 26, 1987. The Building Plans were 'accepted conditionally for further scrutiny' subject to certain conditions by the Corporation Authorities. From time to time thereafter certain objections/ requisitions were served upon the petitioners and they are stated to have been duly complied with by the submission of revised Building Plans whenever necessary or required.3. It is the case of the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-21-1990
Reported in : (1990)2MLJ1
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. Appellants were the writ petitioners in writ petition No. 7557 of 1984. Appellants 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of some deceased employees of the respondent-management. They sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-management to release and settle the withheld payments of death benefits due to them as dependents of the deceased employees, and to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 each together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum calculated from the due date. The writ petition was resisted and by judgment dated 14th December, 1984, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.The facts are not in dispute. Seven employees viz.(1) Shanmugam. (2) G. Kulandaiswamy. (3) R. Selvanathan, (4) R. Mariappan, (5) Sambandam, (6) C. Chellappan and (7) Md. Usman died while in the service of the 'management-respondent on 26.6.1977, 8.5.1982, 30.10.1983, 2.10.1983, 27.12.1983. 30.8.1983 and 1.10.1983 respectively. While the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-11-1990
Reported in : (1991)ILLJ260Mad; (1991)IIMLJ496
Somasundaram. J.1. The respondent 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 1601 of 1981 are the appellants in W.A. No. 917/87. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent in W.P. No. 1001 of 1981 are the respondents in W.A. 917/87. The respondent in W.P. No. 7853 of 1982 is the appellant in W.A. No. 918/87. The petitioners in W.P. No. 7853 of 1982 are the respondents in W.A. No. 918/87. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the writ petitions. 2. The prayer in W.P. No. 1001/81 is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 26th January 1981 issued by the second respondent and for directing the petitioner's reinstatement. In W.P. No. 7853/83 the petitioners challenge the Regulation Nos. 21 and 31-G of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Officers and Servants Conduct Regulations, 1972 and pray for issue of a writ of declaration declaring the said regulations as illegal and unconstitutional in so far as the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-06-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Delhi25; [1991]70CompCas388(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT633
..... contract between the parties. learned counsel relied on halsbury, volume 25, fourth edition, para 398, at page 221, section 46vb of the insurance act read with rule 58 of the insurance rules and life insurance corporation of india v. raja vasireddy komalavalli kmba : [1984]3scr350 in support of his contention. 38. the supreme court in general ..... specifically used the expression 'underwriting and revivals' of policies in the case of the life insurance corporation and stated that it was the divisional manager who was competent to underwrite a policy for rs.50,000 and above. the mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of the applicant or the mere preparation of the policy document is not acceptance. acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed to by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption ..... 7,40,606.65 together with costs and interest has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant - national insurance co. ltd. the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956, having its registered office at e-5, hauz khas, new delhi. the plaint has been ..... or the circumstances must be such as to admit of a reasonable inference. 43. in the present case, admittedly, the factory of the plaintiff was insured by the bank only till december 29, 1981, for a period between 1978 and december 29, 1981. from december 30, 1981, till june 1, 1982, the factory was not insured. it is admitted by the plaintiff that no policy was issued by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-10-1990
Reported in : 1991ACJ682; [1991]70CompCas641(Ker)
Sukumaran, J.1. This appeal presents a virgin question in insurance law : the scope and implications of a term in a proposal for the policy. The court below decreed the plaintiff's suit. The Life Insurance Corporation felt aggrieved by it. It challenges the conclusion and subsidiary findings as contained in the judgment adverse to it.2. The factual background has to be furnished first before we discuss the nice and enticing question of law.3. Yogimadathil House in Tellicherry was an expansive family. Khadija of that house had six sons and four daughters. Adbul Kader was one among them. The constrictions of his country side could not easily solve the problems of his poverty. Like many others, he migrated to Bombay (described by that constitutional architect, Montague, as 'one of the wonders of the world'). It was only a pavement shop near Flora Fountain in 1959. The trade was brisk. The profit was sizable. The prosperity was impressive. That attracted the younger brother, Androo, to his...
Tag this Judgment!