Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-06-2006
Reported in : 2008(1)CHN807
..... funds which is a substantial amount. he submitted that under the trust in the event of a member and/or dependant granted the pension by purchase of assurance or annuity policy or policies of contract on the life insurance corporation of india. families of members are only entitled to pension in the event of a member dying before retirement. accordingly, once pension is provided by purchase of annuity from the fund to a pensioner, he ..... 23rd december, 2004 passed by the hon'ble first court whereby his lordship while disposing of the application under section 34 of the trusts act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) was pleased to hold that the application under section 34 of the said act is maintainable. his lordship further held that the trust has to remain for payment of pension not only to ..... neither falls within the category mentioned in order 41 of the civil procedure code nor the same can be considered as a decree and as such does not fall under order 43 of the civil procedure code.5. the said order does not adjudicate right of any party nor determines any issue, therefore, cannot be termed as 'judgment' within the meaning ..... , comes to an end, or it can be declared as a resulting trust of the funds as suggested by mr. sarkar in the given facts.40. in our opinion, the decisions reported in air 1956 calcutta 281 (supra) and air 1959 sc 1049 (supra) cannot be a help to mr. sarkar in the facts and circumstances of this case.41. after considering the submissions made before .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-14-2006
Reported in : 2007ACJ1441
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Leave is granted to the appellant to take the point that the brother and sister of the victim since are not the legal heir due to existence of mother of victim as sole legal heir, accordingly, insurance company had no liability to pay the compensation to them.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.3. A short question involved in this appeal as to whether in the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the brother and sister of the victim guided as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, could be entitled to be the claimants due to existence of sole legal heir mother of victim, in view of the statutory provision as stipulated under Section 163-A of the said Act that the claim application should be filed by the 'legal heirs' of the victim and further on the point as to whether the learned Tribunal below was wrong to identify the multiplier to quantify compensation amount on the basis of the age of the victim. The answer of the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-14-2006
Reported in : ILR2007KAR602; 2007(3)KLJ401; 2007(2)KCCR845; 2007(1)AIRKarR666
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought to declare Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy as unconstitutional and ultravires and further, to declare that the condition to undergo Medical Test for getting the revival or renewal of the policy as null and void and to issue writ of mandamus or any other direction directing the respondents 2 & 3 not to forfeit the premium amount paid by the discontinued policy holders and to treat the said amount as fixed deposit till the maturity period and further to issue writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Corporation to deposit all such alleged forfeited amount in any one of the scheduled bank or in the alternative, to treat the said amount, as the deposit of the policy holders payable at the time of maturity of the policy along with the reasonable interest and for such other relielfs.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The petitioners are said to be the polic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-27-2006
Reported in : AIR2006All264; 2006(4)AWC3430
ORDERPoonam Srivastava, J.1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Sri. R.C. Shukla, Advocate, appearing for he defendant/respondent.2. This is a revision under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Court Act challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, court No. 10, Gorakhpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2001, Achintya Kumar Lahiri v. Life Insurance Corporation of India.3. The plaintiff/revisionist instituted a suit for decree of ejectment from the disputed accommodation, which consists of first floor of the building along with garage within the compound. The rate of rent as claimed by the plaintiff is Rs. 2500/- per month. A registered notice was served on 14.2.2001 to the respondent/tenant for arrears of rent from September 1996 up to January 2001 to the tune of Rs. 1,32,500/-(Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand five hundred). The notice was sent to the Divisional Manager Life Insuran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-16-2006
Reported in : 2006(1)MPLJ419
ORDERAbhay M. Naik, J.1. Short facts giving rise to this Civil Revision are that Shri Bhagchand Sharma had an Insurance Policy against his life bearing No. S/341332096 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 27-3-1990. The respondents are the daughters of Bhagchand Sharma, who became unwell during his duty hours and was admitted to the Government District Hospital, Khandwa. Bhagchand Sharma died during his treatment in the Hospital. The matter was reported to the police who got the post mortem performed on the body of deceased Bhagchand Sharma, No offence was found to have been committed and accordingly, the concerning police station closed the case of death of Bhagchand Sharma. The factum of death was informed to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. There was one more Policy of Insurance bearingNo. S/341331808 against the life of Bhagchand Sharma for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The claim was submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-14-2006
Reported in : (2007)2CALLT567(HC),[2007(115)FLR1097]
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Order No. 69 dated July 15, 1998 in the case being No. VIII-140/94 including order No. 91 dated December 14, 1999 and the award dated June 01, 2000 passed by the 8th Industrial Tribunal respectively. The fact as made out in the writ petition is inter alia as follows:2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Central Government undertaking and the Central Government exercises pervasive control and day to day administration over the affairs of the petitioner No. 1. The industry of the petitioner No. 1 is carried on by order under the authority of the Central Government and as such the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is Central Government.3. The respondent No. 4 was appointed in the company in November, 1969. The said respondent had a very unmeritorious service record inasmuch as during his tenure of service he was warned and cautioned 25 occasions.4. On June 13, 1992 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-11-2006
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR560]; (2007)1LLJ176Bom
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule2. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel for the parties.3. By this petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated September 6, 2005 passed by the Labour Court Mumbai dismissing the petitioners' preliminary objection about its jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute.4. The petitioner is an Air Transport Company possessing licence to operate 'non-scheduled air transport service' granted. by the Director General of Civil Aviation under the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The respondent who was employed as an air craft maintenance engineer by the petitioner resigned his services with effect from December 26, 2001. According to the respondent, six months salary due to him was not paid by the petitioner. He therefore applied to the Labour Court constituted by the Government of Maharashtra (for short 'the State Labour Court') under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') for recovery of the salary of the six...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-03-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC1194; 2006(2)AWC1580(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN173; 2006(2)CTC146; [2006(3)JCR200(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC278; (2006)2MLJ312(SC); 2006(2)SCALE203; (2006)2SCC777
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The submissions advanced in this appeal by way of special leave necessitates a brief glance into the historical origin of the Calcutta High Court. 2. In August 1861, the British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act which empowered the Crown to establish, by Letters Patent, High Courts of Judicature at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Consequent to such authority, the Letters Patent dated 14th May, 1862 was issued establishing the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. By subsequent Letters Patent dated 26th June, 1862, the High Court at Bombay and Madras were also established.3. The Letters Patent empowered the High Court of Calcutta to exercise Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction within the local limits of the Presidency town of Calcutta as might be prescribed by a competent Legislative Authority for India. Within such local limits, the High Court was authorized to try and determine suits of every description, except those falling within the jurisdiction of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Apr-05-2006
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ581
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. The common question referred to the Division Bench is whether the claimants are entitled to get interest on compensation in respect of the trees cut and removed from their properties without having any contractual obligation. When the matter was argued before us, the question was limited to the date from which interest has to be calculated, i.e., whether interest is to be paid from the date of cutting of trees or from the date on which the application for compensation was made or from the date on which compensation was awarded. Therefore, there is no dispute before us that interest is payable on the compensation for trees cut and removed. In some of the revisions, compensation was awarded for the trees cut and interest at different rates is awarded from the date of petition till the date of payment and in some others Kerala State Electricity Board has challenged the award and rate of interest. According to the persons who have filed the revisions challenging the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jul-04-2006
Reported in : (2006)205CTR(Ker)593; [2006]286ITR389(Ker)
V. Ramkumar, J.1. In this appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the appellant challenges the appellate order dated August 16, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I. T. A. No. 486(Coch.)/92. Notice on the following substantial questions of law has been ordered:1. Is not the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled to get the benefit under Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, perverse and illegal ?2. Is the Tribunal justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, holding that the assessee had not filed any confirmation letters from the dealers, in the circumstances of the case, especially when major transactions are with one of the partners of the appellant-assessee ?3. Is not the decision of the Tribunal rendered without affording the assessee an opportunity to furnish the confirmation letters from the dealers in question illegal and opposed to the principles of ...
Tag this Judgment!