Kamalubai G. Ranade filed a writ peti tion, S.C.A. No.
This writ petition had to be filed because in spite of the L.I.C. having made the requisite statement under section 226 3 vi of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 5.12.75, the Income tax Officer had number withdrawn the numberice under section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to the L.I.C. and, there fore, the L.I.C. was number making the payment to the respond ent.
Kamalabai G. Ranade filed an appeal C.A. No.
Kamalabai G. Ranade then promptly sent a numberice to the LIC demanding payment of the total amount due against these four policies together with interest 15 since the delay in payment had been occasioned by the default of the LIC.
In this writ petition also the I.T.O. was impleaded as a party.
1248 of 1977 had to be filed giving rise to this appeal raising only the question of I.C.s liability to pay interest on the principal amount due against the policies.
The first writ petition was S.C.A. No.
This led to another writ petition S.C.A. 302 of 1977 filed in the Bombay High Court by Smt.
The next writ petition filed by Smt.
Prior to the date of maturity of these policies the Income tax Officer on 27.1.1971 issued a numberice under section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Manager of the LIC at Nagpur directing the LIC to pay to the ITO forthwith any amount due from the LIC to or, held by the LIC for or on account of the said V. Ranadeto meet the amount due from G.V. Ranade as ar rears of income tax.
Kamalabai G. Ranade came to this Court by special leave and Civil Appeal No.
302 of 1977 in the Bombay High Court.
This was reit erated by the LIC in its letter dated 11.8.72 to the assign ee.
Kamalaba G Ranade.
Kamalabai G. Ranade till further companymunication from the ITO.
This numberice further mentioned the companysequences envisaged by section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Divisional Manager of the LIC at Nagput intimated the fact of receipt of the numberice under section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assignee of these policies, Smt.
In pursuance of the above order of this Court, the LIC filed on December 5, 1975 the requisite statement on oath under section 226 3 vi of the Income Tax Act, L961 in respect of the remaining three policies.
3 of S. 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and file it in Court within two months from today stating that numbersum of money is due to the Assessee, insured person, before the Incometax Officer.
It will thereafter be open to the Income tax Officer to take such other proceedings as he might companysider necessary in order to realise the amounts due from the assessee.
On 5.9.1972 Smt.
This dispute regarding the L.I.C.s liability to pay interest led to the filing of the Writ Petition No.
The LIC was also required by this numberice to take the necessary steps for revocation of the ITOs numberice and to make the payment due in respect of all these policies to the assignee.
This writ petition was dis missed in limine by the High Court on 14.9.72.
The amount of Rs.3415.70 payable against the first policy which matured on 14.9.72 was paid by the LIC to the ITO.
Kamalabai G. Ranade the amounts due under these policies.
vi of CI.
The said G.V. Ranade took four policies on his own life from the Life Insurance Corporation of India hereinafter referred to as the LIC during the period 1958 to 1960.
The L.I.C. has number disputed at any stage its liability to pay to Smt.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.81 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
Kamalabai G. Ranade and also to make a statement on oath as companytemplated by section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that numberpart of the said amount is due to G.V. Ranade number does the LIC hold any part of the sum for or on account of G.V. Ranade.
The writ petition in the High Court was filed by Smt.
On the other hand, Smt.
1248 of 1977 decided on January 7, 1981 which gives rise to this appeal.
Nagpur sd Dt.
Kamala bai G. Ranade praying for a direction to the ITO to revoke all numberices issued under section 226 3 to the LIC and to the LIC to pay to her the amount due against the policies which had matured.
19620636 10,000.00 3415.70 14.9.72 13932229 3,500.00 1118.65 28.12.73 13969 144 5,000.00 892.20 9.11.75 13972300 2,000.00 557.70 21.12.75 In April 1969 G.V. Ranade assigned absolutely all these four insurance policies in favour of his wife Smt.
That appeal was disposed of by this Court on October 6, 1975 as under On behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Mr. Rathi stated that he would file the necessary statement on oath in accordance with sub cl.
861 of 1972 filed in the Bombay High Court on 5.9.72 prior to the date of maturi ty of the first policy claim against,which was required to be paid by the L.I.C. to the assignee, Smt.
Kamalabai G. Ranade was S.C.A. No.
Accordingly, this is the only question arising for decision in this appeal.
The prayer made therein was for a direction to the L.I.C. to pay the principal amount together with interest thereon.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Kamalabai G. Ranade, the wife of Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade of Nagput.
No doubt some other reliefs including revocation of the numberice under section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were.
Admittedly the LIC had made the payment of these amounts to Smt.
K. Sanghi for the Respondent.
The second argument relating to companystruction of section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is in fact the main argument of Shri Rao and, therefore, we shall companysider the same after disposing of the remaining arguments which are shorter points.
302 of 1977 being companyered by the discus sion relating to the third companytention, the same is rejected.
The appeal is disposed of accord ingly.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated January 7, 1981 in Writ Petition No.
The third argument is based on the principle of res judicata and companystructive res judicata on the basis of two earlier writ petitions filed by Smt.
In respect of it numberstatement need be made and companysequently numberorder can be made under S. 226 3 vi .
The assignee sent a similar numberice to the ITO asserting her claim as the assignee to get the moneys payable under the policies.
However, it has disputed its liability to pay interest thereon for any period after the date of maturity on the ground that the delay was Occasioned by the I.T.O.s numberice under section 226 3 .
P. Rao, Kailash Vasdev and S. Murlidhar for the Appel lants.
This writ petition being dis missed, Smt.
The special leave has been companyfined only to the question of liability of the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation, to pay interest for the period after date of maturity of insur ance policy, in case of delay in payment.
It is, however, stated that in respect of one policy, the Life Insurance Corporation has already paid the money to the Income tax Officer.
Kamalabai G. Ranade.
1248 of 1977.
There will be numberorder as to companyts.
These policies were paid up and the particu lars thereof including their paid up value payable on the date of maturity are as under Policy Sum Paid up Date of Number Assured Value Maturity.
This was after issuance of the numberice under section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the I.T.O. to the I.C. One of the reliefs claimed therein was a direction to the L.I.C. to make a statement on oath as required by sec tion 226 3 vi of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that numberpart of the amount due against the policy maturing on 14.9.72 was due to the insured G.V. Ranade number did the L.I.C. hold any part of that sum for or on account of the alleged defaulter.
On 4.4.71 companynsel for the ITO produced before the High Court a companyy of the order dated 1.4.77 passed by the Income tax Officer withdrawing the numberice under section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
1248 of 1977 of the Nagput Bench of the Bombay High Court.
also claimed including payment 01 the amount together with the accretions thereto.
1979 of 1981.
Kamalabai G. Ranade and the assignment so madewas duly registered by the LIC as under In registering this Assignment the Corpora tion makes numberadmission as to its validity.
Kamala bai G. Ranade claimed that the L.I.C. nad wrongfully refused to make the statement as companytemplated under section 226 3 vi of the Income Tax Act, 1961 resulting in delay in payment of the moneys after maturity of the policies.
It appears that the ITO did number revoke the order of attachment in spite of the LIC making the requisite state ment on oath under section 226 3 vi of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 5.12.75.
Kamalabai G. Ranade in these circumstances.
861 of 1972 , in the High Court of Bombay impleading the LIC and the ITO as respondents therein claim ing several reliefs which are mentioned at pages 33 to 35 of the paper book.
The reliefs included a direction to the LIC for payment of Rs.3415.70 due on 14.9.72 on maturity of the first policy to Smt.
The ITO in a letter dated 28.7.72 addressed to the LIC had added that the alleged transfer of policies by G.V. Ranade to his wife are void with an intention to defraud the revenue and the case falls within the mischief of section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the LIC was requested to withhold any payment to Smt.
The assignee sent a numberice dated 21.8.72 to the LIC reiterating that the policies had been absolutely assigned to her as admitted by the LIC as a result of which the amount payable against the same had to be paid only to her since the amount was number held by the LIC for or on account of G.V. Ranade.
8.4.69 P. Divisional Manag er It appears that there were some income tax dues against the said G.V. Ranade for recovery of which Income tax Offi cer had companymenced recovery proceedings.
On 4.4.77 that writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn as a result of the I.T.O .s companynsel filing a companyy of the order dated 1.4.1977 withdrawing the I.T.O.s numberice under section 226 3 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 enabling the I.C. to make the payment due against the policies to the respondent.
373.of 1973 by special leave in this Court against dismissal of her writ petition by the Bombay High Court.
