Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-09-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC2989; [1997]Supp2SCR172
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 7, 1996 at a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which judgment was passed in appeal against the judgment dated April 18, 1994 of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondents. This was however the second round of litigation between the parties.3. The first respondent who was the petitioner sought quashing of the earlier order dated December 21, 1981 passed by the Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) requisitioning 0.63 acres of land of the petitioner bearing plot No. 1790, Mouza Manoharpur, J. L. No. 93 in the district of Hooghly. In terms of this order the possession of the land was taken over on January 7, 1982. As a matter of fact the order of requisition pertained to 21.41 acres of land of various plot numbers which include...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Decided on : Jun-17-1997
Reported in : (1998)91CompCas25
1. This is an appeal filed on April 12, 1996, jointly by Smt. Kana Sen, Shri Prasenjit Sen and Shri Premjit Sen (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") under the provision of Section 111(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for issuance of necessary directions to C. K. Sen and Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-company") to register the transmission of shares in the names of the appellants so that the names of the appellants may appear along with other surviving joint holders of the said shares of the respondent company.2. The facts of the instant case are that appellant No. 1, Smt. Kana Sen, is the widow of the late Shri Dip Kishore Sen. The respondent company is a private company limited by shares, having its registered office at Calcutta in the State of West Bengal. The deceased, Dip Kishore Sen, was the registered member of the respondent company, the relevant particulars of which are given below : (i) Share S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : May-02-1997
Reported in : AIR1997AP304
..... life insurance corporation of india act and the rules framed thereunder. the life insurance corporation of india was established on 1-9-1956. the life insurance corporation of india act, 1956 was enacted.9. section 2 of the act deals with definitions. section 4 deals with the constitution of the corporation. chapter iii deals with the functions of the corporation.10. under section 48 the power is vested in central government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the act. section 48(2)(a) provides for the terms and conditions of office and the terms and conditions of service of members.section ..... judge rightly held that the circulars are illegal.23. as per section 48(2) of the life insurance corporation of india act, the central government is vested with the power of framing regulations as to the terms and conditions of services of employees and agents of the corporation.24. as per the circulars, no life insurance corporation of india agency shall be given to any applicant whose, spouse is employed in the state/ central government or public undertaking. since ..... corporation to terminate the services of any agent. therefore, the termination cannot be said as bad. he further contended that in the case of life insurance agent in writ petition no. 6925 of 1994, the appointment of agent itself is at the inception of bad allegation that his appointment is after thecircular was issued by the corporation. therefore terminating the said agent cannot be said as bad and there is rule bar.43 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : May-02-1997
Reported in : 1997(3)ALT783
..... life insurance corporation of india act and the rules framed thereunder. the life insurance corporation of india was established on 1-9-1956. the life insurance corporation of india act, 1956 was enacted.9. section 2 of the act deals with definitions. section 4 deals with the constitution of the corporation. chapter iii deals with the functions of the corporation.10. under section 48 the power is vested in central government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the act. section 48(2)(a) provides for the terms and conditions of office and the terms and conditions of service of members. section ..... judge rightly held that the circulars are illegal.23. as per section 48(2) of the life insurance corporation of india act, the central government is vested with the power of framing regulations as to the terms and conditions of services of employees and agents of the corporation.24. as per the circulars, no life insurance corporation of india agency shall be given to any applicant whose spouse is employed in the state/central government or public undertaking. ..... corporation to terminate the services of any agent. therefore, the termination cannot be said as bad. he further contended that in the case of life insurance agent in writ petition no. 6925 of 1994, the appointment of agent itself is at the inception of bad allegation that his appointment is after the circular was issued by the corporation. therefore terminating the said agent cannot be said as bad and there is rule bar.43. in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-19-1997
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2922; [1998]229ITR71(KAR); [1998]229ITR71(Karn)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The assessee is a Development Officer employed with the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' for short). During the previous year pertaining to the asst. yr. 1983-84, he, apart from his other emoluments, had received a sum of Rs. 40,094 as incentive commission from the Corporation. At the time of assessment, he claimed 40 per cent. thereof, being Rs. 16,038, as permissible deduction. But the same was disallowed by the ITO on the ground that since incentive commission received by the assessee not being an income derived either from business or profession, no deduction, as claimed, is permissible therefrom. Accordingly, he added the incentive commission to his salary income and allowed only the standard deduction as contemplated under S. 16(i) of the IT Act, 1961 (In short, 'Act'). 2. Against the said assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC and succeeded in getting deduction of 40 per cent. as claimed. Aggrieved by the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Dec-09-1997
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD166; 1998(1)ALT1
..... of section 6 of life insurance corporation act, 1956. section 6 is part of chapter iii which deals with the functions of the corporation and section 6 lays down:'6. functions of the corporation :--(1) subject to the rules, if any, made by the central government in this behalf, it shall be the general duty of the corporation to carry on life insurance business, whether in or outside india, and the corporation shall so exercise its powers under this act as to secure that life insurance ..... not well in the life insurance corporation. therefore, it had issued guidelines to the life insurance corporation. the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the observations made by the supreme court were made in a judgment to which the life insurance corporation was not a party. when the corporation came to know about the observations made by the supreme court, they filed an application in the supreme court. in the counter affidavit the respondents have stated that an application was moved by the corporation under article 142 ..... court in which the life insurance corporation was not a party, but while examining the schemes of the peerless company and comparing them to the life insurance corporation policies, the court made the following observation :'10. we cannot help but feel distressed that despite articles 38, 39, 41 and 43 of the constitution, the life insurance corporation of india, an instrumentality of the state, which is given the monopoly of life insurance business in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-04-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC2459; [1997]89CompCas109(SC); (1997)2GLR1577; JT1997(4)SC505; RLW1997(2)SC189; 1997(3)SCALE423; (1997)5SCC64; [1997]3SCR617
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. The question that falls for consideration in these appeals by special leave is whether payment of premium in respect of a life insurance policy by the insured to the general agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'LIC') can be regarded as payment to the insurer so as to constitute a discharge of liability of the insured. This question arises on the following facts :Jaswantrai G. Shah, the husband of appellant No. 2, (hereinafter referred to as 'the insured') took out four insurance policies for Rs. 25,000 each with double accidental benefits on March 6, 1986 though Shri Chaturbhuj H. Shah (respondent No. 3) who was a general agent of a the LIC (respondent No. 1). Premium under the said policies was payable on half yearly basis. The insured deposited the first half yearly premium on March 6, 1986 and the second half yearly premium was deposited on September 6, 1986. The third half yearly premium fell due on March 6, 1987 but it was not deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-23-1997
Reported in : 1997(6)ALT1(SC); JT1997(8)SC373; 1997(6)SCALE357; (1997)8SCC461; [1997]Supp4SCR207; 1998(1)LC67(SC); (1997)3UPLBEC2141
1. Respondent was appointed as Assistant Development Officer on 4th September, 1985. After completion of the period of Apprenticeship, he was placed on probation as Development Officer with effect from 4th December, 1985. While he was still a probationer, his services were terminated by order dated 22.5.1986 which was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.2. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. etc. : (1986)IILLJ171SC , a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 12.8.1986 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination. The judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in appeal. Now, the matter is in this Court.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Reliance placed by the High Court on the decision of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd., (supra) was wholly out of place as that decision related to a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-1997
Reported in : 1998(1)BomCR427
..... under section 5a and section 5b, respectively, of the employees' provident fund and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the 'indian airlines' and 'air india' corporations established under section 3 of the air corporations act, 1953 (27 of 1953), or the life insurance corporation of india established under section 3 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the oil and natural gas commission established under section 3 of the oil and natural gas commission act, 1959 (43 of 1959), or the deposit insurance and credit guarantee corporation established under section 3 of the deposit insurance and credit guarantee corporation act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the central warehousing corporation established under section 3 of the warehousing corporation act, 1962 ..... , therefore, completely misdirected itself on the question of appropriate government and failed to apply its. mind to the principles laid down by the apex court in the air india statutory corporation and the application of the said principles to the facts of the case in hand. for the reasons aforestated, i have no hesitation in holding that in relation to the employer industry the central government is appropriate government under section 2(a) of the i.d. act and, therefore, the complaint filed by the employee was not maintainable and could not be tried by the industrial court, and, the order passed by the industrial court on 18-3-1997 is without .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-02-1997
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas478(Mad)
P. D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard all the parties.2. The writ petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the respondents from interfering with the rehabilitation scheme and with the restarting of the third respondent mill by way of interim working without prior sanctions from the second respondent herein as envisaged under 19A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and consequently to direct the respondents to proceed as per the directions of the second respondent in so far as it relates to the rehabilitation and re-starting/continuing operations of the third respondent mill.3. The petitioner contends that : 4. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, the third respondent herein, is a composite textile mill located at Tiruppur and was incorporated in April, 1932, as a spinning mill. It started commercial production in May, 1932.5. Thereafter, a separate weaving unit called 'B' Mill was started in 1960, and the earlier spinning unit came ...
Tag this Judgment!