Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-14-2010
..... of the firm, the period determined as the previous year for the assessment of the income of the firm; or(g) in respect of profits and gains from life insurance business, the year immediately preceding the assessment year for which annual accounts are required to be prepared under the insurance act, 1938 (4 of 1938), or under that act read with section 43 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956).(2) where an assessee has newly set up a business or profession in the said financial year and his accounts are made up ..... revenue authority is precluded from contending that the said branch business was not a separate source of income of the assessee.19. it appears from the order impugned that the tribunal relied upon section 3(1)(f) of the act which is applicable to a case where the assessee was a partnership firm and such firm was assessed as such. in the case before us, until december 31, 1981, m/s. sancheti enterprise was an 'association of persons' and thereafter ..... , it became a proprietary concern of the assessee. section 3(1)(f) of the act is not at all applicable to a case where the assessee is a member of the 'association of persons'. at the relevant period, in case of income of 'association of persons', it was only such association, which was to be assessed, and there was no question of taxation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-27-2010
Reported in : LC2010(1)268
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This order will dispose off an application IA 12828/2009 whereby the defendants seek dismissal of this suit for injunction, on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.2. The plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or their representatives from using selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, or advertising their goods and the services under the mark 'SHOLAY', which the plaintiffs owns. The plaintiffs company is engaged in film production, and avers to being one of the foremost concerns in that regard. The suit speaks of the plaintiffs. extensive reputation, and production of prominent and well- known films. It is alleged that the plaintiffs produced the blockbuster 'SHOLAY' in 1975, which became one of the most successful and renowned films ever. The plaintiffs allege that 'SHOLAY' and its appeal has transcended films, and it has cut across barriers of geography, language, ideology and class. It also allude...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-11-2010
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT391
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.IA No. 12828/20091. This order will dispose of an application IA 12828/2009 whereby the defendants seek dismissal of this suit for injunction.2. The plaintiff in this suit seek permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or their representatives from using selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, or advertising their goods and the sale of various kinds of cosmetics and personal care products under the trademark 'VOV', which the plaintiff owns. It is contended that the plaintiff company honestly coined and conceived and started using the trademark 'VO5' and 'VO5 along with the term ALBERTO', which is its name. The plaintiff company's name is depicted in small letters about the letter V. The plaintiff has produced photographs depicting its trademark. It claims to be using the Mark continuously since 1955 as its proprietor and have built a valuable trade goodwill and reputation in respect of such products under the trademark in question. The suit averments are a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-2010
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed in public interest by the Indian National Trust for Architectural and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), a nation wide non-profit membership organisation set up in the year 1984 to protect and conserve India's vast natural and cultural heritage. The present public interest litigation is for protection of the Bharath Insurance Building from being demolished without applying the provisions of Rule 22 of the Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2004.2. The Bharath Building, which is presently owned and rented out by the Life Insurance Corporation, is a landmark building recognised as a symbol of heritage conservation's losing battle in the city and State. The history of the building may have to be set out at this juncture. The Bharat Building's story goes back to 1868 when W.E. Smith, a pharmacist, arrived in Madras and, finding enough pharmacies and more in business in the city, proceeded to Ooty where he set up shop. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-31-2010
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC450
R.V. Raveendran, J.Facts in CA No. 1886/2007:1. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent - S.P. Padhye - (also referred to as `the employee') was employed as a Telephone Operator by the appellant for more than two decades. The respondent's service was terminated by the appellant with effect from 31.12.2000 on the ground that he had become deaf (85% reduction in ability to hear). The respondent complained to the Disability Commissioner, Pune, in regard to such termination, alleging that he was fit, able and normal when he joined service of the appellant and as he acquired the hearing impairment during the period of service, he should have been continued in employment in some suitable post. The Disability Commissioner made an order dated 12.10.2001 suggesting to the employer to undertake a social responsibility, by re- employing the respondent to discharge any other work. The suggestion was not accepted by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2010
..... irda's role is independent and uninfluenced by the act of repudiation by the insurer of a claim, and it has a duty under section 14(2)(b) irda act to settle insurance claims for the protection of the interests of the policy holders.jurisdiction of the irda27. irda is a statutory authority constituted under the irda act. the preamble of the i rda states that it is an 'act to provide for the establishment of an authority to protect the interests of holders of insurance policies, to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of the insurance industry and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and further to amend the insurance act, 1938, the life insurance corporation act, 1956 and the general insurance business (nationalisation) act ..... supreme court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said slp with liberty to file an application before the ncdrc in view of the interim order dated 27th july 2009 passed ..... 43 and submits that the terms of the contract cannot override the statute under which the insurer is obliged to indemnify the insured when some mishap occurs by mischance. it is submitted that a reading of section 14(b) of the insurance regulatory development authority act ('irda act') together with section 64um(2), (3) & (4) of the insurance act indicates the wide powers of the irda to deal with such claims of the insurers. further, the appellate authority?s power is co-terminus with the power of the irda. reliance is placed on the judgment in jute corporation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-2010
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The facts in these four writ petitions are more or less similar and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment.2. Each of these Petitioners was an agent with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), the Respondent herein. By separate orders dated 24th November 2005, the agency of each of the Petitioners was terminated and forfeiture of renewal commission was also ordered in terms of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Rules, 1972 [hereinafter the 'Agents Rules'].3. Each of the Petitioners preferred an appeal to the Zonal Manager against the terminations and each of the appeals was rejected by separate orders dated 30th May 2006. The orders dated 24th November 2005, terminating the agency and the orders dated 30th May 2006 dismissing the appeal have been challenged by each of them by way of the present writ petitions. They were agents attached to Branch Unit 11-C.4. The Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10426 of 2006, Mr. P.K. Singh, was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-08-2010
Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE232
1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 18843/2007 and 18846/2007 granted. Delay condoned and leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions. We also condone the delay in filing the applications for substitution and allow the applications for substitution. We also allow the applications for impleadment.2. These Civil Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 22.12.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in a batch of Writ Petitions in relation to 34 acres and 3 guntas of Inam land in Bangalore District which was allotted by the State Government to an association of teachers for construction of houses and for which the Bangalore Development Authority has sanctioned a lay out plan. The Bangalore Development Authority has filed Civil Appeal No. 3037/2007, the legal representatives of Inamdars have filed Civil Appeal No. 3038/2007, the Teachers' Colony Residents Association has filed Civil Appeal No. 3049/2007 and several owners of the house sites...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-29-2010
Reported in : 2010(I)OLR534
S.C. Parija, J.1. The action of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'LLC.') in repudiating all its liabilities under Policy Nos. 583852302, 583851466 and 583707315, on the ground that the deceased insured had withheld material information regarding his health at the time of effecting the insurance policies with L.I.C., is under challenge by the legal heirs of the insured in the present writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition is that the insured Pramod Kumar Behera was working in Deulabera Colliery under Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and during his service period, he had taken six insurance policies bearing Nos. 581483762, 581487043, 581488222, 583707315, 583851466 and 583852302. The insured Pramod Kumar Behera died on 18.6.2004 due to heart failure. After the death of the insured, the wife (petitioner No. 1) made claims in respect of the aforesaid policies. The LIC, while settling the claim and releasing the assured amount in respect of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : May-25-2010
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 06-09-2002 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No. 416/2000. The compliant therein was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents/opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It was alleged that the repudiation of the insurance claim put forward by the complainant as nominee of the life assured would amount to deficiency of service and that the entrustment of the premium with the 3rd opposite party LIC Agent is to be treated as effective payment of the premium for the insurance policy. Thus, the complaint in OP 416/2000 was filed to get the insurance amount with 12% interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of the proceedings. 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version denying the alleged defiency of service. They contended that the policy issued infavour of V. Radhakrishnan, the son of the complainant Ragini...
Tag this Judgment!