Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2018
..... 45 of 52 subject in idbi bank as a special case, subject to the following conditions:1. the deal should be commercially viable and should be arrived at after due-diligence and approval of lic board.2. lic shall ensure that provisions of life insurance corporation act 1956. insurance act, 1938. irda act 1999. rules and regulations of irdai and any other relevant law in force are strictly followed. the permission to acquire upto 51% stake 3. in idbi bank is to all necessary regulatory approvals from rbi, sebi and any other relevant ..... , 1964, which required the government of india to hold at least 51% of the total share capital in the development bank, stood repealed by virtue of section 15(1) of the idbi repeal act, 2003 and in any event was not applicable to idbi ltd., which is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956. the question whether employees have any vested right in their 33. employer continuing to be a government company, is no longer res in balco integra. this was considered by the supreme court employees union (regd.) v. union of india ..... crore to about 50 lac customers. even if a part of business is shifted to the bank due to synergy of operations for efficiency and profitability, it can give a huge upside to the bank; w.p.(c) 8842/2018 page 43 of 52 further help in is 2.5% of the amount of investment less than the lic s incremental subsidiaries of the banks shall be utilised for business by lic which will again (c) synergy in investment for lic s investment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-02-2018
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6020 OF2018(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.3168 OF2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) ... APPELLANTS KANPUR AND ANR. VERSUS CANARA BANK ... RESPONDENT WITH C.A.NO.6064 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9295/2017, C.A.NO.6056 of 2018 2018 @ SLP (C)No.3162/2017, C.A.NO.6058 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9292/2017, C.A.NO.6055 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.3163/2017, C.A.NO.6060 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9294/2017, C.A.NO.6057of 2018 @ SLP(C) No.9288/2017, C.A.NO.6054 2018 @ SLP(C) No.3169/2017, C.A.NO.6066 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.9290/2017, C.A.NO.6065 2018 @ SLP(C) No.9296/2017, C.A.NO.6059 2018 @ SLP(C) No.9293/2017, C.A.NO.6053 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No.3165/2017, C.A.NO.6052 of 2018@SLP(C)No.9289/2017,C.A.NO.6051of 2018 @ SLP(C) No.3167/2017, C.A.No.6063 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No.9291/2017, 2 C.A.NO.6062 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No.9297/2017, C.A.NO.6061 of 2018 @ SLP(C)No.6728/2017, C.A.NO.6023 of 2018 @ SLP (C) No.33260/2016, C.A. No.5378/2017, C.A. No.5374/2017, C.A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-01-2018
..... section 5a and section 5b, respectively, of the employees provident fund and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the life w.p.(c) 5830/2004 page 16 of 38 insurance corporation of india established under section 3 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the oil and natural gas corporation limited registered under the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), 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 corporations act ..... said decision, and it was observed, in this regard, that the same was concerned with the distinction between the powers of the administrator in the union territory of delhi to that of a governor in a state and the same would thus be applicable only in respect of the w.p.(c) 5830/2004 page 34 of 38 said issue since the effect of rule 2(f) of the rules was not in issue. this distinction, in my respectful ..... make the reference within two months of receipt of the dispute.17. at the same time, the dismissal, by the supreme court, of the slps filed by the unions representing the interests of, inter alia,... respondents 2 to 43 herein, after grant of leave and consequent conversion, of the slps into civil appeals, necessarily results in merger, of the judgment of this court, with that of the supreme court, in view of the law laid down .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:17. 01.2018 Judgment pronounced on:31. 05.2018 * + W.P.(C) No.11599/2015 VEDANTA LIMITED & ORS. ..Petitioners Through: Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Mr. Anish Kapur, Mr. Dhritiman Roy and Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, Advs Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Waiz Ali Noor, Mr. Prateek Dhanda and Mr. Saeed Qadri, Advs. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha and Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Advs. for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.Preface:1. The extension of tenure of Production Sharing Contract dated 15.5.1995 (hereafter referred to as "PSC") qua the Rajasthan Block RJ-ON- 9(hereafter referred to as "Rajasthan Block") for a period of 10 years beyond its current term is at the heart of the matter. 1.1 The present tenure of the PSC comes to an end on 14.5.2020. The petitioners seek the extension of the tenure of the PSC for a further period W.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-02-2018
..... 15. it is useful also recollect banatwala and company v l.i.c. of india (2011) 13 scc446where the court examined section 21 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956. section 21 is broadly analogous to section 40 of the act and reads as follows: 21. corporation to be guided by the directions of the central government: in the discharge of its functions under this act, the corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the central government may give to it in writing; and if any ..... be considered mandatory after the central government issues such directions on the question of such policy. not having done so, the petitioner appears to have proceeded on the basis of a misconception that the provisions of dopt om were applicable without having verified from the authority competent leave or other human resource personnel. to sanction as the single judge noted, there was no communication or expression of views made by the aai to the uoi subsequent to the letter dated ..... governmental orders must comply with the requirements of a statute as also the constitutional provisions. 23. the supreme court has also examined section 43-a of the motor vehicles act, 1939 which permitted the state government to issue orders and directions of a general character as it considered necessary for the purposes of road transport. section 64-a of the same lpa-446 & 447/2016 page 19 of 23 legislation also allowed the state government to call for records of quasi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-02-2018
..... 15. it is useful also recollect banatwala and company v l.i.c. of india (2011) 13 scc446where the court examined section 21 of the life insurance corporation act, 1956. section 21 is broadly analogous to section 40 of the act and reads as follows: 21. corporation to be guided by the directions of the central government: in the discharge of its functions under this act, the corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the central government may give to it in writing; and if any ..... be considered mandatory after the central government issues such directions on the question of such policy. not having done so, the petitioner appears to have proceeded on the basis of a misconception that the provisions of dopt om were applicable without having verified from the authority competent leave or other human resource personnel. to sanction as the single judge noted, there was no communication or expression of views made by the aai to the uoi subsequent to the letter dated ..... governmental orders must comply with the requirements of a statute as also the constitutional provisions. 23. the supreme court has also examined section 43-a of the motor vehicles act, 1939 which permitted the state government to issue orders and directions of a general character as it considered necessary for the purposes of road transport. section 64-a of the same lpa-446 & 447/2016 page 19 of 23 legislation also allowed the state government to call for records of quasi .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-27-2018
$~59 & 60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. 09.2018 + W.P.(C) 1278/2001 K.S. CHAUDHARY & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocate with and Mr. Yashaswi Chouksey Mr.Shantanu Jugtawat, Advocates. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate for LIC. Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department with Mr. Aditya Khamparia and Mr. Amar Panwar, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 7574/2008 AND RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Sarvesh Rai, Advocate for Mr.Ankit Jain, Advocate. versus SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate for LIC. INSURANCE Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department with Mr. Aditya W.P.(C) 1278/2001 & 7574/2008 Page 1 of 13 Khamparia and Mr. Amar Panwar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-27-2018
$~59 & 60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:27. 09.2018 + W.P.(C) 1278/2001 K.S. CHAUDHARY & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Yashish Chandra, Advocate with and Mr. Yashaswi Chouksey Mr.Shantanu Jugtawat, Advocates. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate for LIC. Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department with Mr. Aditya Khamparia and Mr. Amar Panwar, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 7574/2008 AND RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Sarvesh Rai, Advocate for Mr.Ankit Jain, Advocate. versus SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate for LIC. INSURANCE Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department with Mr. Aditya W.P.(C) 1278/2001 & 7574/2008 Page 1 of 13 Khamparia and Mr. Amar Panwar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-16-2018
$~OS-7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of decision 16.07.2018 CS(COMM) 604/2017 HARMEETPAL SINGH BINDRA & ORS..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Dheeraj Gupta and Ms.Sonam Siddhiqui, Advs. CITIBANK & ANR versus ..... Defendant Through Ms.Suruchi Suri and Ms.Aasia Hasan, Advs. for D-1 Mr.Shantanu Malik, Mr.Sukrit Kapoor, Ms.Nanki Arora and Ms.Shruti Shiv Kumar, Advs. for D-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) 1. Present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration that the revocation/surrender of the insurance policy as has been done by the plaintiff is valid. A direction is also sought to the defendant to jointly and severally liquidate the insurance policy and release the liquidation amount of Rs.1,25,25,993/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Other connected reliefs are also sought. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff No.1 secured a life insurance policy with defendant No.1 for and on behalf of defendant No.2 on an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-24-2018
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :7. h August, 2018 Date of Decision:24. h September, 2018 CS (COMM) 1057/2018 & CAVs 697/2018, 698/2018, I.As. 10222/2018, 10223/2018, 10224/2018, 10225/2018 RAVINDER SABHARWAL AND ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Anuj Berry, Mr. Abhay J.V., Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Apoorva Murali & Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Advocates (M-9871792740) versus XAD INC. AND ORRS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aananya Kumar, Mr. Manish Jha, Ms. Pragya Chuahan, Ms. Megha Kapoor, Advocates for D- 1 to 3 (M-9910627489). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.JUDGMENT1 The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants from conducting an Extraordinary General Meeting (hereinafter EGM) for removing the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 Sh. Ravinder Sabharwal is a Director of XAD Software Pvt. Ltd. and was also the nominee share holder of 50% of the sha...
Tag this Judgment!