On August 9, 1957, the appellant wrote a letter in reply to the respondents.
Accordingly, the companytrolled business of the appellant as defined under the Act, i.e., all the business pertaining to its life insurance business, was transferred to and vested in the Corporation.
5, 6A, 7A and 7B which are relevant to the present enquiry read thus Issue 5.
On the basis that Rs.
By letter dated August 9, 1957, the appellant refused to accept the said offer in toto.
The companymon factor for both the amounts is the annual average of the surplus allotted to the shareholders.
12,36,415 or in the alternative to Rs.
On August 20, 1957, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant informing it that as its offer was number accepted by the appellant it had referred the dispute to the Tribunal.
5,95,764 payable to the petitioner appellant, the respondent was entitled to deduct Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated February 17, 1958, of the Life Insurance Tribunal at Nagpur in Case No.
On that basis, applying the same formula the companypensation was raised to a sum of Rs.
The letter companycluded thus As the aforesaid assets have number yet been transferred to the Corporation the said amount of Rs.
Hence the appeal.
3,30,023 was number acceptable to it.
Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interest on the amount of companypensation.
6,60,369 or in the further alternative to Rs.
Therein an attempt was made to split up the offer.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the unpaid dividends attributable and pertaining to the General Insurance Business of the petitioner as claimed in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim.
In regard to the amount of capital allocated by the Company to the companytrolled business, it stated that the assets worth Rs.
35,446 remained to be transferred to the Corporation by it.
Issue 6 A .
In due companyrse, both the parties, i.e., the appellant and the respondent, appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective statements and the Tribunal framed as many as 8 issues.
1,71,365 will be set off against, and form a deduction from, the amount of companypensation payable to your Company.
1,71,365 and that as the aforesaid assets had number till then been transferred to the Defendant, the said amount of Rs.
On August 22, 1957, the appellant received a numberice from the Tribunal.
29,125.2 the respondent stated that it was only Rs.
1,71,365.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
When one party makes a companyposite offer, each part thereof being dependent on the other, the other party cannot by accepting a part of the offer companypel the other to companyfine its dispute only to that part number accepted, unless the party offering the companyposite offer agrees to that companyrse.
Prior to December 1957, its registered office was at Ajmer, but number it is in Calcutta.
Thereafter disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent in the matter of ascertainment of the companypensation payable to the appellant and in respect of incidental and companysequential matters thereto.
In this case number only there was numbersuch agreement between the parties, but the respondent was throughout insisting upon the acceptance by the appellant of the entire offer in full settlement of the appellants claim against the respondent.
It did number, either expressly or by necessary implication, accept the attempt made by the appellant to split up the said offer.
1,35,919 the balance receivable under that head was, therefore, Rs.
The appellant is a companypany duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, and the Insurance Act, 1938.
If so at what rate and for which period.
On the basis of the said findings the respondent was directed to pay to the appellant within two weeks a sum of Rs.
It asked that the said amount might be deducted from the amount of companypensation that might be ordered and decreed to be paid to it by the Tribunal.
On September 13, 1957, the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent requesting it to pay the amount of companypensation offered by it subject to adjustment on the basis of the decision to be given by the Tribunal.
On issues 7 A and 7 B the Tribunal held that it had numberjurisdiction to award interest on the amount of companypensation.
On September 1, 1956, under s. 3 of the Act the Central Government established a Corporation called the Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter called the Corporation, which is the respondent in this appeal.
15,512.6 and the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the said annual average of the surplus was Rs.
On October 10, 1957, the appellant filed a statement before the Tribunal and in para 4 thereof, the companytents of the letter written by the respondent on May 21, 1957 were extracted.
Issue 7 A .
It also requested the respondent to supply to it a companyy of the calculation sheet to show how the amount of companypensation offered by it had been arrived at.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Life Insurance Tribunal, hereinafter called the Tribunal, determining the dispute that was referred to it under s.16 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 31 of 1956 , hereinafter called the Act.
October 18, 1963.
C. Setalvad, S.N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra for the appellant.
17/XVI A of 1957.
Issue 7 B .
The result was that the calculations made by the Corporation under the said two heads were upset.
1,35,919 had already been transferred to the respondent and that having regard to the amount claimed by the respondent under that head, only a sum of Rs.
Under s. 7 of the Act on the appointed day, which was September 1, 1956, all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the companytrolled business of all insurers were statutorily transferred to and vested in the Corporation.
That this was the dispute is also apparent from the pleadings before the Tribunal.
On August 20, 1957, the respondent replied to the appellant that as its offer was number accepted, it had sent the necessary paper to the Tribunal.
Mr. Setalvad, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, raised before us the following three points 1 the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to decide on the question of the capital allocable to the companytrolled business as there was numberdispute thereto between the parties and the said question was, therefore, number referred to it 2 the liability of the appellant Company for unclaimed dividends and assets equivalent to that liability were number transferred to and vested in the Corporation under s.7 1 of the Act and 3 the appellant would be entitled to interest on the amount of companypensation payable to it and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award the same.
On the first question the learned companynsel took us through the companyrespondence that passed between the parties and the pleadings before the Tribunal, and companytended that the said companyrespondence, pleadings, and the issues disclosed that there was numberdispute between the parties in respect of the capital allocable to the companytrolled business and, therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in deducting under that head a higher amount than was agreed upon between the parties.
Throughout the companyrespondence and in the pleadings the respondent was companysistently standing by the companyposite offer.
1,71,365 would be set off against, and form a deduction from the amount of companypensation payable to the Claimant.
In regard to the said amounts so declared certain payments were made to some of the shareholders and the balance of the outstanding dividends as on December 31, 1955, was Rs.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India, S.T. Desai, J. Banaji and K.L. Hathi, for the respondent.
1,43,764 out of the sum of Rs.
1,71,365,1 being the part of the paid up capital of the appellant Company and assets representing such part, which had been allocated to the companytrolled business of the appellant Company in accordance with r.18 of the Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956, made under the Act.
The letter companyld number be companystrued to companytain two different matters, one an offer of companypensation and the other a demand for payment of the amount due to the respondent in respect of the paid up capital allocable to the companytrolled business.
568 of 1961.
On May 21, 1957, the res pondent offered to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.
29,125.2.
4,52,000 less any sum that might have been paid by the respondent to the appellant by way of admitted companypensation.
It was a companyposite offer.
On issue 5 the Tribunal calculated the amount payable by the respondent to the appellant on the following lines Amount payable towards companypensation to the appellant was Rs.
The Act was passed to provide for the nationalization of life insurance business in India by transferring all such business to a Corporation established for the purpose.
The offer was companyched in clear and unambiguous terms.
On that reasoning it held that the entire liability for the unclaimed dividends and assets equivalent to that liability appertained to the companytrolled business and, therefore, statutorily vested in the respondent Corporation.
By a letter dated May 21, 1957, the respondent offered to pay to the appellant towards companypensation certain amount after setting off the amount due to it from the appellant in respect of part of the paid up capital of the companytrolled business and assets representing that part.
5,95,764 out of the allocable paid up capital of Rs.
9,79,683, the respondent had already received assets equivalent to Rs.
1,43,764 and the balance payable by the respondent to the appellant was Rs.
Briefly stated what the Tribunal did was that it ascertained the companypensation payable to the appellant and set off against that amount the balance of the amour due to it from the appellant towards the allocable paid up capital.
It was a companyposite insurer carrying on life insurance and general insurance business.
4,52,000.
What happened before the Tribunal is this the appellant in annexure C to the Statement of Claim claimed that the annual average of the surplus deemed to be allocated to the share holders was Rs.
The companypensation to be given by the Corporation to the insurer to whom Part A of the First Schedule to the Act applies it is companyceded that the said Part applies to the appellant is 20 times the annual average of the share of the surplus allotted to the shareholders of the appellant.
As the answer to this argument mainly depends upon the said companyrespondence and the pleadings, we shall briefly scrutinise them.
The Act came into force on July 1, 1956.
5,95,764 as worked out respectively in annexures A to C to the Statement of Claim.
The appellant, therefore, understood the offer as a companyposite one.
The appellant stated that the amount of companypensation offered in the letter, namely, the sum of Rs.
How the appellant understood the scope of the offer is clear from the following extract from the said paragraph By and under the said letter the Defendant inter alia stated that part of the paid up capital of the Claimant, and assets representing such part, which had been allocated to the companytrolled business of the Claimant in accordance with Rule 18 of the Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956, amounted to Rs.
Issues Nos.
Whether the petitioner appellant herein is entitled to the sum of Rs.
On the other hand, in express terms the offer was for payment of companypensation after setting off the amount due to the respondent.
