Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-07-2008
Reported in : 2008ACJ1040; AIR2008SC1310; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)784; 2008(1)AWC769(SC); 2008BusLR446(SC); I(2008)CPJ81(SC); (2008)3GLR2304(SC); JT2008(2)SC250; 2008(3)MhLj584; (2008)2MLJ1034(S); 2008AIRSCW1404; 2008(3)LH(SC)1956; 2008(2)ICC581
..... on 28.3.1995 and the cheque was issued much beyond the grace period. additionally, section 64vb does not apply to the appellant. in this context section 43 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (in short the 'act') has relevance. reference is also made to condition 2 of the policy.6. in reply learned counsel for the claimant submitted that it is not condition 2 of the policy which is applicable, but condition no. 3 which is applicable. it is stated that no adverse inference can be drawn because the insured had not signed the cheque and merely because the cheque was received after the death ..... time of the assured. in the instant case the cheque was admittedly received after the death of the assured. further the revival takes effect only after the same is approved by the corporation and is specifically communicated to the life insured. in the present case this is not the situation.further section 43 of the act reads as follows:43. application of the insurance act.(1) the following section of the insurance act shall, so far as may be, apply to the corporation as they apply to any other insurer, namely:-sections 2, 2b, 3, 18, 26, 33, 38, 39, 31, 45, 46, 47a, 50, 51, 52, 110a, 110b, 110c, 119, 121, 122 and 123.(2) the central .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-17-2008
Reported in : ILR2009KAR698; 2009(2)KarLJ273; 2009(1)AIRKarR21
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Senior Branch Manager in the cadre of Class-I Officer with the first respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the Corporation'). The case made out by the petitioner is that he voluntarily retired from service on 07.11.1991 due to some domestic and personal reasons. This petition is filed for the relief to declare that the age of the officer to be 55 years at the time of voluntary retirement under Regulation 19(2)(a) to be ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India and further declare the respondent Corporation to grant commutation amount of the pension and to pay pension from the date of his retirement on 01.11.1993 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts germane for the disposal of this case can be stated in brief as follows:The petitioner, as stated earlier, was a Class-I Officer, Due to some domestic problems, he proposes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR842; 2008(6)MhLj652
V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Perused the petition.3. This petition is directed against the order dated 1-7-2008 passed by the Principle Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 2005, confirming the order of eviction dated 13-4-2005 passed by the Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('the Act of 1971' for short).The Factual Matrix:4. The factual matrix reveal that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises situate at Village No. 5, Row No. 3, Ground Floor, Jeevan Bima Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 103, owned by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai ('the L.I.C.' for short) since 1962.5. The L.I.C. through its Advocate issued notice dated 12-9-1996 terminating petitioner's tenancy on the ground that the petitioner has constructed a weather-shed and has also erected a fence around the shed to prevent the respondent's staff from coming near i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : III(2008)BC330(SC); 2008(4)BomCR707; [2008]114CompCas178(SC); (2008)3CompLJ91(SC); [2008]84SCL355(SC); 2008AIRSCW4651; AIR2008SC2805; 2008(7)SCC619; 2008(4)Supreme553; 2008(4)KCCRSN315
..... court in an application presented to it as a court of first instance declares liability to pay a debt, the jurisdiction exercised is original and civil and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does not depend upon any preliminary step invoking exercise of discretion of the high court, the jurisdiction is ordinary. 25. in damji valli shah v. life insurance corporation of india : [1965]3scr665 , the question which arose for consideration was as to whether a similar provision made in the life insurance corporation act, 1956 shall bar the jurisdiction of the company court in terms of section 446(1) of the companies act. referring to section 41 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 it was stated ..... have jurisdiction as regards sale of its assets till an order of winding up is passed by a company court. 42. apart from the fact that sub-section (4) of section 20 contains a non obstante clause and, thus, it shall prevail over the provisions contained in sub-section (2). the said act is also a latter statute. 43. the provisions of sica would prevail over the provisions of the companies act. section 20 of sica relates to winding up of the sick industrial company. before bifr or aaifr, as the case may be, makes a recommendation for winding up of the company .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC2361; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)983; 2008(3)AWC3091(SC); III(2008)BC247; 2008(56)BLJR2070; [2008]143CompCas711(SC); (2008)5MLJ1097(SC); (2008)151PLR662; 2008(8)SCALE327; 2008AIRSCW3903; AIR2008SC2360; 2008(8)SCC148
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the Division Bench has held that since the property of the respondent No. 1 has been seized under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act,1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1992), the Debts Recovery Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant a declaration that the properties of a notified person stand charged and the certificate against such properties cannot be executed by the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1993) and the financial institution would have to move the Special Court in respect of the property attached.3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 was declared as a notified party on 6.10.2001. Pursuant to the said no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-19-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)MPHT123
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The land lady, being dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 19/6/2003 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Shahdol in case No. 3/A 90/92-93 dismissing her application of eviction against the respondent, has filed this revision application under Section 23-A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. The present applicant, being landlord of special category as defined under Section 23-J of Chapter III-A of the Act, filed an application before Rent Controlling Authority for eviction of respondent from the suit accommodation which is non-residential on the ground of her bona fide need as envisaged under Section 23-A(b) of the Act.3. The application for eviction was filed by applicant-Shyama Bai against her tenant Shobhraj Ahuja who died during the pendency of the application before the Rent Controlling Authority and present respondent-Murlidhar was brought on record as his legal representative.4. The pleadings of the applicant in her app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1485; [2008(117)FLR1]; JT2008(2)SC337; (2008)2MLJ932(SC); 2008(2)SCALE484; (2008)3SCC321; 2008(2)SLJ480(SC); 2008AIRSCW1552; AIR2008SC1485; 2008(3)SCC321; 2008(2)Supreme157; 2008(2)LH(SC)1240; 2008(3)KCCRSN213
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Corporation) to issue instructions in terms of Regulation 51 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1996 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th September, 1995 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 32 of 2004. 2. We may notice only the admitted facts herein.Respondent No. 1 is an Association of officers who have retired from the services of the appellant-Corporation which is a statutory authority constituted and incorporated under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956.During the period of 1st August, 1992 and 31st July, 1994 a revision of scales of pay of the offices and employees of the Corporation took place. Different cut off dates were fixed for grant of different nature of allowances as also pay by the Chairman of the Corporation in pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1806(SC); [2008(118)FLR1189]; JT2008(5)SC342; 2008(2)KLT95(SC); (2008)IILLJ708SC; 2008(4)SCALE512; 2008(3)SLJ344(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Whether jurisdiction of the Industrial Courts are ousted in regard to an order of dismissal passed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a Corporation constituted and incorporated under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 3.2.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam.2. Respondent herein was appointed as a Development Officer of the appellant. Departmental proceeding were initiated against him. Articles of Charges were framed; fifth of it being, forgery of a signature on a proposal. According to the Enquiry Officer, the respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as he did not personally verify the details of the person concerned and relied wholly upon the representation of the agent. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the first four charges, but exonerated him on the fifth one. He was dismissed from service by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-08-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD165
ORDERC.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This is yet another writ petition and hopefully the last in the series of writ petitions filed by the petitioner, who is the erstwhile Zamindar of Venkatagiri estate.2. The dispute pertains to payment of compensation and interim payments till the determination of the compensation under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') along with interest. The Act abolished all the estates in the State and provided for payment of compensation to the estate holders due to such abolition. By notification dated 11.11.1959, the Director of Settlements called upon all the estate holders to apply for copies of data on the basis of which he proposed to determine the basic annual sum. On the ground that such a data applied for by the petitioner was not furnished, he filed WP No. 376 of 1960. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 21.11.1962 with the direction to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-03-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC2657; 2008(4)SCALE768; (2008)5SCC472; 2008AIRSCW4438
..... the companies could not fall within section 16(1)(g) of the act. it was also noticed by this court that under the life insurance corporation act and the banking companies act provisions have been made to frame regulations independently of the reorganisation and there is no such comparable power under the act and, therefore, the schemes impugned herein are ..... insurance sector'. 16. it is the stand of the respondents that as a matter of fact the report was foundation for introduction of the insurance regulatory and development authority act, 1999 (in short 'irda act'). on the basis of the recommendations amendments were made to the act, life insurance (business nationalization) act, 1956 and the insurance act, 1938 (in short the 'insurance act'). the malhotra committee examined the state of the insurance industry and gave specific suggestions regarding the working of development officers and other reforms inter-alia necessary for the growth of the insurance ..... system for the purposes has been withdrawn by deleting the proviso to clause 7.the comparison table is as follows:development officer applicable in applicable in relationoperating at increment to incentives.city/town as per 2003 existing as per 2003 existingcost ratio cost ratio ..... illustration the development officer who was procuring a business of rs. 32,00,000/- premium has to now procure a business of rs. 43,36,000/- to maintain the cost ratio and to make himself eligible for an increment.11. deletion of aspi provision.as per .....
Tag this Judgment!