LexHINDUSTAN IDEAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19~1
tah of Wrtrt Bc11{af
v.
S.N. B:21ak
19C:?
56
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963]
only provides that those which
the court
already inherently poRseBBes shall be preserved
and is inserted as their Lordships think, lest
it should be considered that the only powers
possessed by the court are those expressly
conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and
that no inherent powers had survived the
passing of that Act".
With this interpretation, which has been put on the
•
statutory duties and powers of the police and of
r
the powers of the- Court, we are in accord. The
•
High 0ourt was in error therefore in interfering
with the powers of the police in investigating into
the offence which was alleged in the information
sent to the Officer-in-charge of the police station.
W c therefore allow this appeal and set &Bide
the order of the High Court. The investigation will
now proceed in accordance with law.
Appeal allawed.
HINDUSTAN IDEAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
LIFE INSURANCE OORPORATION OF INDIA
(A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and
J. R. M:unaoLKAR, JJ.)
/nsura11 ce-"PertJOn making the reference" --Meaning of-
1./0 P'riod preacribed for moving the Corporation-EJ!ecl-Life
Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31of1956), ••· 16(2) 48 (2)
(f) -Life ln1urance Corporation Ru/ea, 1956, r. 12 Sub-rr. (•),
(ii),. (iii).
The Life Insurance business of the insurer. The Andhra
Insurance Company Ltd., vcs1ed in the Life Insurance Cor-
poration of India and it became entitled in compensation
under s. 16 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act. The Corpo-
ration made an offer of it and claimed variou• deductions. The
•
! •
·~ • •
)
I~
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
57
insurer raised certain disputes and on August 6, 1957, made
an application to the tribunal constituted on M•y 25, 1957
for ire .. assessment of the compensation and also for extension
of time for making the application by three months from
the; date of its constitution. On September 21, 1957, the
insurer filed another statement giving details of its claim.
In 'answer to the claim the Corporation filed its written state-
ment. The tribunal held that the claim for compensation
was time-barred under r. 12 of the Rules framed under the
Act: and dismissed the application.
It also held that under
s. J6(2) of the Act the insurer had no right to move directly
the: tribunal regarding the amount of compensation, but
could move corporation for making a reference of the dis-
pute to the tribunal and that it did not show any cause for
extending time to
make the reference to the tribunal.
Against the judgment of the tribunal, the insurer obtained
spetial leave to add and thereafter amalgamated with
Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company 1.td. which was sub-
stituted as appellant in place of the insurer.
Held,
(Per Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ.) That
while sub-s. (1) of s. 48 confers a power on the Central
Government, sub-s. (2) of s. 16 imposes a duty upon it
and therefore, it is obligatory upon the Central Government
to ,prescribe the period within which the insurer is to move
the' Corporation for referring the claim to the Tribunal.
When the law requires a period to be prescribed for doing a
thing, that period should be clearly specified with specific
reference to the particular purpose.
The specific purpose
r~ferred to in Sub·s. (2) of s. 16 is, to have the matter
refl'rred to the tribunal for decision. "Making of the refer-
ence is thus in the hands of the corporation and not in these
of ]insurer who can only move the corporation for making the
reference. Time has to be pre•cribed for enabling the insurer
to move the Corporation. Prescribing time for making a
reference is not prescribing time for moving the corporation
to make the reference.
Prescribing time by implicatfon
would not be compliance with the provisions of Sub-s. (2} of
•. 16.
' West Durby Union v. Metropolitan Life ABBuranee Oo.
[1897] A. C. ti47, referred to.
While framing r. 12 the Rule making authority lost
sight of the fact that Sub-s. (2) of s. 16 contemplates a refer-
ence not by the insurer but by the corporation. The pro-
ceeding taken before the tribunal were therefore misconceived.
No question of limitation arises because the oeriod within
196~
Hindusian lde'a I
lnsuruce Co. Ltd •
v.
Life lnJUt•nce
Clf'poralion of Indio
1962
Bt"ndrulcn ld~cl
ltUllltlftU Co. Ltd.
••
Lije llUU'Onc.
~dionoflnJi4
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1963]
which anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.