279 of 1960 in the High Court of Bombay.
V. Joshi, S. S. Khanduja, S. K. Manohanda and Ganpat Rai, for the respondents.
72,924 and its balance sheet showed some assets totaling Rs.
C. Setalvad, S. T. Desai, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
The first valuation was of the business as on December 31, 1950 and it showed a loss of Rs.
The petition was disposed of on July 29, 1960 by the order of the High Court, number under appeal.
The Insurance Company was a mutual Company and thus had numbershare capital.
It received deposits from Directors and other persons and the respondents V. V. Oak and S. V. Oak bad made five deposits totaling Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 29, 1960, of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
S. Pathak, I. C. Diwaanji, J. B. Dadachanji O. C. Mathur aand Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
11,216, which were perhaps number realizable.
443 of 1962.
Rajendra Chaudhuri, and K. R. Chaudhuri, for Interveners Nos.
This may kindly be numbered.
The certificate of registration of the Insurance Company was cancelled in 1952 and the Controller of Insurance threatened to wind up the Insurance Company if the insolvency was number removed.
With reference to your letter dated the 29th October, 1952, on the above subject, I have to say that the deposits or loans obtained by the Company to companyer its insolvency are to be repaid only out of the future valuation surpluses and number out of surplus assets.
The Tribunal also rejected a claim made under s. 65 of the Indian Contract Act.
As required by the Insurance Act, 1938 4 of 1938 , it caused actuarial investigation and valuation to be made at intervals as laid down in the Insurance Act.
Earlier the Tribunal had sent an injunction to the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay and in its final order the Tribunal held that as they had disallowed the claim, the suit to recover the deposits did number lie.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
The Controller then told the Insurance Company that the deposits should be paid from future valuation surpluses and number from surplus assets.
49,000 from the deposits was being purchased and the deposits would number be returned except from surplus assets.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
These deposits carried interest at 4 1/2 per annum.
The proceedings arose from the taking over of the companytrolled business of the Continental Mutual Assurance Company Ltd., Poona by the Life Insurance Corporation under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 31 of 1956 .
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General, and B. R. G. Achar, for the Attorney General for India.
7,408.81P. in the last weeks of December 1950 and 1951.
In July 1952, all the Directors of.
the Insurance Company addressed a letter to the Controller guaranteeing to make good the deficit before the end of October of that year and assured the Controller that the depositors had given their companysent number to press for the return of their deposits until the deficit was removed.
Hidayatullah J. This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated July 29, 1960 in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution reversing the decision of the Life Insurance Tribunal, Nagpur dated December 30, 1959.
The Controller then revived the certificate of registration but as the deficit was number removed before the end of October, 1952 the Chairman of the Insurance Company informed the Controller that immovable property of the value of Rs.
The Insurance Company was incorporated in 1946 and carried on only life insurance business.
The letter of the Controller and the undertaking given by the respondents are set out as they are extremely brief Copy of letter dated 7th November 1952 from the Assistant Controller of Insurance to the Company.
I hereby give my companysent to keep the amount of my deposit of Rs.
Copy of letter dated 29th November 1952, from V. V. Oak, the 1st Respondent to the Company.
279 of 1960.
The Insurance Company agreed to this and the depositors, including the respondents, gave undertakings to the same effect.
Against the decision of the Tribunal the depositors filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Special Civil Application No.
