Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1534 - HC - Indian LawsEntitlement of a former agent of LIC to get renewal commission viz., commission on the renewal premium on the policies effected through him - Interpretation of statute - Insurance Act - Whether the second limb of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 44(1) of the Act is one which would also apply to the other different clauses thereunder viz., clauses (a), (b), (bb) and (bbb) introduced to that proviso for application to LIC so as to import the said embargo even in respect of persons falling under clauses (a) to (bbb)? HELD THAT:- A purposive construction of the proviso to Section 44(1) of the Act applicable to LIC on the question of applicability of the second limb of clause (c), would always acknowledge and accept the construction that it applies to all categories of former LIC agents falling under clauses (a) to first limb of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 44(1) of the Act as applicable to LIC. In the light of the discussions as above, we are inclined to answer the referred question in the affirmative - the second limb of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 44(1) of the Act is one which would apply to the other different clauses thereunder applicable to LIC viz., clauses (a), (b), (bb) and (bbb) introduced to that proviso so as to import the said embargo even in respect of persons falling under clauses (a) to (bbb). Whether we should finally decide the appeal as also the review petition or return them to the Division Bench? - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant is a person who falls under clause (c) of the proviso to section 44(1) and became disentitled to renewal commission owing to the violation of the condition therein it has to act as a disqualification disentitling him from claiming renewal commission under any of the heads, going by the way we answered the referred question - there is no illegality or error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge warranting an appellate interference especially in view of the manner in which we answered the reference and also taking note of the fact that we have dismissed the review petition filed against W.A. No. 2712 of 2009 - the writ appeal is liable to fail. Appeal dismissed.
|