LexTHE TROPICAL INSURANCE CO LTD. & OTHERS versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 517 chand Nipani and Shri Maniklal Chunanlal Baroda were not liable to pay any tax on these transactions nor could any such liability for tax be transferred to the petitioners by virtue of such declarations. If, therefore, there was no basis for any such liability, the declarations by themselves cannot create any new liability and the petitioners cannot be held liable to tax even by the operation of section 4(6) of the Act, the very basis of the liability sought to be im- posed therein having disappeared. The result, therefore, is that the Respondents will be restrained from enforcing the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and its provmons against the petitioners and from imposing a tax in respect of the transactions in question and in particular from imposing a tax on the purchase price of goods pur- chased on the declarations under Rule 26 being goods specified in the registration certificate as intended for use as raw material in the manufacture of goods for sale by actual delivery in Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of consumption in that State but utilised for any other purpose under the provisions of section 4(6) of the Act. The Re~ondents will pay the peti- tioners' costs of this petition. THE TROPICAL INSURANCE CO LTD. & OTHERS v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER (and connected petition.) [S. R. DAS, ACTING C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKA1'A- RAMA AYYAR, JAFER IMAM and CHANDRA- SEKHARA AYYAR JJ.) Insurance-Insurer doing life insurance business along with general insurance business-Power of Central Government to appoint Administrator-Such power, if confined exclusively to life insurance business-Grounds not taken in petition under Art 32, if can be urged at the hearing-Insurance Act (IV of 1938), s. 52-A-Consti- tution of India, Art 32. 1955 Mmrs Mohdll/al J/argovind Das, Bidi Merthanls, Jabalpur (M. P.) v. Tht Stale of Madhya Pradesh and anothtr Bhagawati J. 1955 Sep11m/Jel 22 1955 Tht Tropical Insurance Co. Ltd, and otlurs v. TM Union of India and anotlur 518 SUPREME COL'RT REPORTS [19551 The petitioners, two Insurance Companies, carrying on busi- ness both in life insurance and general insurance, questioned the validity of notifications issued against them under s. 52-A of the In- surance Act for appointment of Administrators to take ov~r manage- ment of their affairs on the ground, inter alia, that s. 52-A was ex- clusively restricted to life insurance business and the Government had no power to take over n1anagement of general insurance busi- ness. Held, that the Insurance Act of 1938 no doubt makes a distinc· tion between life insurance business and general insurance business, but its main concern is to protect life insurance polic·y-holdcrs. Although s. 52-A of t~e Act has no application to an insurer who carries on husiness in general insurance alone, it undonhtedlv applies to an insurer who combines both and gives the Central Govern- ment the powe-r, on the report of the Controller, to appoint an Administrator to take over the management of the entire business of the insurer including general insurance business when such insurer is found to act in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the life policy-holders. That grounds not specifically taken in petitions under Ait. 32 cannot be urged at the time of the hearing. ORIGINAL JuRisDICTioN : Petitions Nos. 186 & 195 of 1954. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. S. C. Isaacs, (Mohan Behari Lal and P. K. Ghosh, with him) for the petitioners in both petitions. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India (Porus A Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the respon- dents. 1955. September 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J.-These petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India question the validity of the no- tifications issued under section 52-A of the Insurance Act of 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the appointment of an Administrator. In the case of the Tropical Insurance Company Ltd. an Administra- tor was appointed under notification dated the 14th of July, 1951 and in the case of the Jupiter General Insurance Company· Ltd. another Administrator was appointed under notification dated the 10th of July, 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 519 1951. These two insurance companies do insurance busine
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.