LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Lallr.itttltli Chi11no 1't11),:tzla l,'trlai v. IM.kiruldl L11k.thmmno Shah J, 1963 Ma"il 4 - is2 SUPREME cotJRt RtPoit'fs [1964] voL. his interest in the property devised iu his favour under the will or V cnkata Konda Reddy so as to blend it with the joint family property. In the absence of any such evidence, the High Court was, in our judgment, right in holding that Lakshmama was entitled to a fourth share in the property devised under the will or Vcnkata Konda Reddy. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Appwl tli.~111·iBscd. :'l:AfIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, M. HwAYA'ITLLAll and J. c. SHAii JJ.) Liff'. ln,lfurance-Co1i..~tructiutt uf 1':flalutc--C'u11ipu~itr. inJurer-"Cvnlrolltd businP.1A"-Mcaniny and SCUjic -;f-If in- clude.~ capilnl reckmptian ln~1°ntlfS 1Lntl annility cR.,ia£n husintss- Life In.•urance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of J'J.)G) ss. ~. 7. ~fhc appellant company was iil.Ginitt1:J 1;: •• co1npositc insurer because it r.arricd on general in5· .. r~nc<e. bu1iness in addition to the busineS> which fell within the definitio~ or con- trolled business. The company also carried 011 both capital redemption businCS! and annuity ccr1ain busin~ss which it compendiously called capital obligation businc.•s. By the opera- tion of s. 7 (I) of the Life fnsnrance Corporation Act, 1956, all the a~cts and liabilities appertainirr~ to the "-.~ontrollcd business" of all insnrers were transferrcrl. to 1 and ''~tcd in the Life lnsura1lcc Corporation front the 'appointed day'. In pursuance of this provision the I.ife Insurance Corporation took over the life insurance Uusincss 1 ! the appellant company. Dispute arose between the parties as to \VJ.at pOlrt or 1hc business of the appellant cornpany vests in the Corpc.ration and what are the assets of the business. The appellant comp•ny r.ontended • - - 2 s.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS is3 that on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, particularly the explanation to the definition of "controlled businc.)'i" the capital obligation business of the cornpany vvbich included capital redemption business and annuity certain business, did not vest in the Corporation. The Corporation on the other hand claimed that this business also vested in the Corporation. This dispute was referred to the Life Insurance Corporation ~fribunal, Nagpur, and the Tribunal decided in favour of the Corporation and the company appealed to this Court with special leave. It was contended in the appeal that the force of the word "only" in the Explanation to s. 2 (3) of the Act which defines "controlled business" is that where an insurer carries on life business and capital redemption business but no other kind of business and or annuity certain business but no other kind of business then the controlled busineos can be said to include in addition to Life business the capital redemption business or annuity certain 'business or both, but \\'here an insurer carries on Life business and general business, life, fire and marine insurance etc., the capital redemption business or the annuity certain business or both cannot be in I uded in the controlled business. It was further contended that the expression "business appertaining to his life insurance business" in sub-els. (i) and (ii) of s. 2 (3) should also be given the same meaning. Held, that on an interpretation of s. 2 (3) and the Explanation thereto the capital redemption business and tke annuity certain business must be included in the expression "controlled business" even in the case of a composite insurer like the appellant company, CIVIL APPELL.i'.l'E JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the jud~ment aad order dated December 30, 1959 and May 17, 1960 of the Life Insurance Tribunal, Nagpur in Case No. 33/Xll of 1959. G. S. Pathak, Datta and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, ill.. C. Set,alvad, and K. L. Hathi, for the respondent. 1963 Nationtl brsuronce Cn., Lti .. •• Life Insurance Cor· ft6T4l'iotr. tJj /Mia 1913 Ncti•tl /mur~1 C':• Lti. v. Life lt»urui<t c.,. J•rtiti•" •! ltciio ....... 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. I U63. March 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · HIDAY AT ULLAH J .-This appeal a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.