{"id":204878,"date":"2004-12-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004"},"modified":"2017-04-18T04:36:04","modified_gmt":"2017-04-17T23:06:04","slug":"life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 29 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 29 December, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 29\/12\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ            \n\nWRIT PETITION No.20541 of 1998   \n\nLife Insurance Corporation\nof India, Schedule Castes and\nScheduled Tribes Employees  \nWelfare Association, rep. by\nits General Secretary.                          ...     Petitioner\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,\n   rep. by its Chairman,\n   Central Office,\n   Yogakshema, \n   Mumbai-400 021. \n\n2. The Senior Divisional Manager,\n   Life Insurance Corporation of India,\n   L.I.C. Building,\n   Anna Salai, Chennai-2.\n\n3. The Executive Director (Personnel),\n   Central Office,\n   Yogakshema, \n   Mumbai-400 021.                                      ...     Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying\nto issue a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.  K.  Shanmugakani\n\nFor Respondents:       Mr.  M.  Jagadeesan (For R-2)\n                        No Appearance (For R-1 & R-3)\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        The  Life  Insurance  Corporation Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
\nEmployees Welfare Association represented by its General Secretary has  sought
\nto   issue  a  writ  of  certiorari  to  call  for  the  records  in  Circular
\nNo.3850\/ASP\/98 Dept.  Personnel\/ER\/A dated 22.6.1998 on the file of the  third
\nrespondent herein  and  quash  the same.  By the said Circular, the relaxation
\ngiven to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled  Tribe  employees  in  the  minimum
\nqualifying  service  for  promotion to the cadre of Higher Grade Assistants as
\nthree years has been withdrawn.   The  further  grievance  of  the  petitioner
\nassociation  is  that  the  respondents  have  not  considered  the candidates
\nbelonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who have put in three years
\nof service and hence the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The pleadings  of  the  petitioner  association  is  that  the
\npetitioner  is  a  registered  Association  established  for  the  welfare and
\nprotection of the interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  employed
\nin the  Life  Insurance Corporation of India.  The Life Insurance Corporation,
\nbeing a statutory corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation
\nof India Act, 1956 and being a part of ‘State’ as defined under Article 12  of
\nthe Constitution of India, is under a Constitutional obligation to provide for
\nreservation  for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees both at the
\nrecruitment level as well as by way of promotion.  It is submitted  that  from
\nthe post  of  Assistants\/Typists,  there  is  a next cadre, viz.  Higher Grade
\nAssistant and the qualification  prescribed  for  the  post  of  Higher  Grade
\nAssistant\/Typist  is  provided  in  the Instructions for implementation of the
\nLife Insurance Corporation of India Class-III and Class-IV Employees Promotion
\nRules, 1987 as follows :\n<\/p>\n
Higher Grade    Section Heads           (a) Section Heads\nAssistants      Stenographers           or\n                Assistants and          (b) 5 years service\n                all other                       in the scale of\n                employees in the                Assistants and a\n                scale of Section                pass in the\n                Heads or Assistants             Departmental\n                                                test or on\n                                                acquiring the\n                                                prescribed\n                                                qualifications\n                                                or\n                                                (c) 10 years service\n                                                in the scale of\n                                                Assistants.\n\nHigher Grade    Stenographers                   5 years service\nAssistants      as Stenographers\n(Stenographers)\n\n<\/pre>\n
It is provided in the Rules  that  for  the  purpose  of  promotion,  what  is
\nrequired  is  five  years service in the scale of Assistants and a pass in the
\nDepartmental test or acquiring prescribed technical qualification or ten years
\nservice in the  scale  of  Assistants  or  Section  Heads  and  the  selection
\nprocedure  prescribed  is written examination followed by oral interview; that
\nAssistants\/Typists who have passed the departmental test in the past will  not
\nbe  required  to  pass  the  departmental test again for promotion to the said
\ncadre and that means, once an Assistant has passed the departmental  test  for
\nthe post of Higher Grade Assistant, he is eligible to be included in the panel
\nfor  the  post  of  Higher  Grade  Assistants;  that  as  per  Class-IV of the
\ninstructions for promotion to Higher Grade Assistants, the preparation of  the
\npanel is to be done as provided below:\n<\/p>\n
        “6.(i)  there  shall  be prepared a panel of all eligible employees in
\nthe order of total marks obtained  on  the  basis  of  criteria  of  selection
\nspecified in Rule No.5.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  out  of  the panel prepared in accordance with sub-rule (1), all
\nthe candidates in the order of merit equal to 5 times the number of  vacancies
\nmay be called for interview by the Promotion Committee.”
\nUnder  Rule  5  of  the  Promotion  Rules,  the  conditions of eligibility and
\ncriteria for selection is provided as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “(i)    The categories of employees eligible for promotion to  various
\ncadres,  their  conditions of eligibility for promotion and criteria for their
\nselection shall be as specified in the Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)    Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-rule  (i),   the
\nChairman  may  direct that an employee who has excelled in any field of sports
\nor athletics at the national  or  international  level  or  has  received  any
\nnational  or  international  award  in  any  cultural,  literary or scientific
\nactivity, may be promoted to the next higher cadres.”\n<\/p>\n
        3.      It is  further  submitted  that  every  year,  the  respondent
\nCorporation  prepares the panels for promotion to Higher Grade Assistants from
\nthe post of Assistants\/Typists;  that  the  candidates  who  have  passed  the
\ndepartmental  test  are eligible to be included for the panel for promotion to
\nbe selected by the Promotion Committee on interview; that in  the  year  1998,
\nthe  Corporation  issued a notification on 9.12.1998 notifying promotion of 40
\ncandidates to the Chennai Division-I and Zonal Office, Chennai including Zonal
\nTraining Centre, Chennai and Internal Audit Department, South  Zone,  Chennai;
\nthat  as  per the said notification, the panel of candidates to be interviewed
\nbefore the Promotion Committee was prepared and  call  letters  for  the  said
\ninterview  were  issued on 15.12.1998, but for reasons best known to them, the
\nCorporation did not include the names of such of  those  Scheduled  Caste  and
\nScheduled Tribe employees who had passed the departmental tests earlier in the
\nsaid panel.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      It  is  further  submitted  that  in  the year 1990, the first
\nrespondent had issued an order relaxing  the  minimum  qualifying  service  in
\nrespect  of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees for promotion to
\nthe cadre of Higher Grade Assistants from five  years  to  three  years;  that
\nhowever,   since   the  said  relaxation  was  arbitrarily  done  without  any
\njurisdiction, it was withdrawn by the second respondent  by  his  order  dated
\n22.6.1998;  that  based  on  the  order  dated  22.6.1998, the respondents had
\nrejected the claims of those Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees who
\nhave qualified with the three  years  qualifications  and  having  passed  the
\ndepartmental test and did not call for interview such of those Scheduled Caste
\nand  Scheduled  Tribe employees who have the three years service and have also
\npassed the departmental tests; that the Circular dated 22.6.1998 is challenged
\nin this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      It is also contended on behalf of the  petitioner  Association
\nthat  the  impugned  order  was  passed  by  the  Executive  Director  of  the
\nCorporation, whereas under Rule 8 of the Rules,  only  the  Chairman  has  the
\njurisdiction  and  the authority to withdraw the relaxation granted by him and
\nas such, the impugned order is without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In the counter affidavit, the respondents would  submit  that  the
\nrespondents  have  followed  the  instructions  contained  in the office Memo.
\ndated 22.2.1997; that even though it is permissible  to  prescribe  reasonably
\nqualifying  marks  or  valuation for SCs\/STs consistent with the efficiency of
\nthe administration and the nature of duties attached to the  office  concerned
\nin  the  matter  of  direct recruitment and the same is not permissible in the
\nmatter of promotion; that with  regard  tot  he  relaxation  of  service,  the
\nChairman has the power (with certain restrictions) by a special instruction to
\nrelax the rule in the case of employees belonging to the SC\/ST employees; that
\nas  far  as  personnel and administrative matters are concerned, the Executive
\nDirector is also empowered on behalf of the Chairman  to  issue  instructions;
\nthat  the  petitioners contention that 22 SC\/ST candidates who have passed the
\ndepartmental test in 1997 have not been selected for promotion is  only  as  a
\nresult of the withdrawal of the concessions as per the impugned circular dated
\n22.6.1998 and  not  for  any other reason.  On such averments, the respondents
\nwould seek to dismiss the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf  of  the
\npetitioner association would cite item No.1 (v) of the impugned order relating
\nto relaxation in the minimum qualifying service for promotion to the cadres of
\nHGA (Admn.) and AAO wherein it is stipulated:\n<\/p>\n
“Instructions  issued  by  the  Chairman  from time to time in exercise of the
\npowers vested in him under Rule (8) of the Promotion Rules 87.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel would also cite paragraph 4 of the  impugned  order  dated
\n22.6.1998:\n<\/p>\n
“According to  the  Govt.  O.M.No.36012\/23\/96-Estt(Res.) Dated 22.2.1997 (Copy
\nenclosed) conveying the above decision of the Govt.  henceforth there shall be
\nno separate standards of evaluation for candidates of SC\/ST for promotion  and
\nassessment  of  all  candidates  for  this  purpose  will be with reference to
\nuniform standard.    Any  instruction  which  provides  for  lower  qualifying
\nmarks\/lesser  standard of evaluation in the matter of promotion for candidates
\nbelonging to SC\/ST may therefore have to be treated as having been modified to
\nthis extent.”\n<\/p>\n
In paragraph 5 of the impugned order, it is further averred as follows;\n<\/p>\n
        “In view of the Govt.  orders, the Chairman has reviewed the  position
\nand  has  decided  that  all  instruction issued by us which provide for lower
\nqualifying marks\/less standard of evaluation in the  matter  of  promotion  of
\ncandidates belonging to SC\/ST mentioned in (1) above will stand withdrawn with
\nimmediate effect.”\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Citing  the  above  relevant  paragraphs  from the impugned order
\npassed by the Executrive  Director  (Personnel)  dated  22.6.1998,the  learned
\ncounsel  would  submit  that  the  question  involved  is  fixation  of  lower
\nqualifying marks and lesser standard of evaluation for candidates of SC\/ST for
\npromotion and assessment of all the candidates for this purpose with reference
\nto uniform standard.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The learned counsel would point out  that  this  notification  has
\ntaken away  clause  (ii)  and  (iv) in paragraph 1.  The learned counsel would
\nalso point out that this circular has been issued in violation of  Article  16
\n(4)(A)  of  the  proviso  to  Article  335  of  the  Constitution of India and
\nallegedly following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court  reported  in
\n1996  (8)  Judgment  Today (Supreme Court) page 643 (S.Vinod kumar and another
\nVs.  Union of India and others 643).  In the  said  judgment,  the  Honourable
\nApex Court,  while  clarifying its earlier judgment in INDIRA SAWHNEY ETC.  V.
\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS<\/a> reported in 1992(6) SC 273 = 1992 Suppl.(3) SCC  215
\nhas held:\n<\/p>\n
        “…   so  far  as  the provision for lower qualifying marks or lesser
\nlevel of evaluation in the  matter  of  promotion  is  concerned,  it  is  not
\npermissible  under  Article  16(4) in view of the command contained in Article
\n335 of the Constitution.  In other words, even if it is assumed for  the  sake
\nof  argument  that reservation is permitted by Article 1 6(4) in the matter of
\npromotions, a  provision  for  lower  qualifying  marks  or  lesser  level  of
\nevaluation  is  not  permissible  in  the  matter  of promotions, by virtue of
\nArticle 335.  If so,  there  can  be  no  question  of  such  a  provision  or
\n“concession”,  as it is called by the Tribunal, being saved by the declaration
\nin Para 829 of the said judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The learned counsel continuing his  argument  would  submit  that
\nsubsequently  the  Parliament  enacted  Article  335  by  82nd amendment dated
\n8.9.2000 and would cite the memorandum dated 3.10.2000 and would conclude  his
\nargument  saying  that the respondents are bound to act in accordance with the
\nmemorandum.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  On the contrary, on the part of the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe respondents would cite paragraph 13 of the impugned order  and  would  say
\nthat the reservation in promotion in favour of SC\/ST candidates will continue.
\nThe  learned counsel would further point out that the amendment to Article 335
\ncomes into operation only on  8.9.2000  whereas  the  interview  commenced  on
\n15.12.1998  and citing para 14 of the writ petition, the learned counsel would
\nsay that it is in violation of the proviso to Article 335 of the Constitution.
\nThe learned counsel would end up his argument after the 82nd amendment to  the
\nConstitution  having gone under water and would pray to dismiss the above writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In consideration of  the  facts  pleaded  having  regard  to  the
\nmaterials  placed  on  record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both it
\ncould be assessed  that  the  petitioner  association  seeking  to  quash  the
\ncircular  dated  22.6.1998  issued  by  the  Executrive  Director ( Personnel)
\nthereby offering instructions or  making  provisions  to  the  Life  Insurance
\nCorporation  of India Clause III and Clause IV Employees Promotion Rules, 1987
\nthereby providing to the lower qualifying marks lesser standard of  evaluation
\nin favour  of  SC\/ST candidates.  According to the petitioner Association, the
\nexecutive order is contrary to the statutory rules framed under the L.I.C.  of
\nIndia Act, 1956 and the Life Insurance Corporation of India,  Clause  III  and
\nClause IV  Employees  Promotion  Rules.    It is the further contention of the
\npetitioner Association that the said order is  without  jurisdiction  and  the
\nsame  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  reservation policy and is designed in
\ndefeating the very constitutional  obligation.    The  petitioner  Association
\nwould  further  point out that the subject was considered by the High Court of
\nRajasthan which refused to strike down the  relaxation  made  available  under
\nSection 8  of  the  said Promotion Rules.  It would be further argued that the
\nrelaxation  of  the  memorandum  of  qualifying  service  for  the   Scheduled
\nCaste\/Scheduled  Tribe  employees  for  promotion,  the  post  of higher grade
\nassistant is a  constitutional  right  and  it  cannot  be  withdrawn  by  the
\nrespondents   much  less  without  an  opportunity  for  the  members  of  the
\npetitioners association held and therefore the impugned order is also contrary
\nto the  principles  of  natural  justice.    The  further  contention  of  the
\npetitioner  Association  is  that while it is the Chairman under Rule 8 of the
\nRules,  who  could  exercise  jurisdiction  and  authority  to  withdraw   the
\nrelaxation  granted  by  himself  and as such the impugned order passed by the
\nExecutive Director (Personnel) of the Life Insurance Corporation of  India  is
\nwithout  jurisdiction  and at this score also, the impugned order is liable to
\nbe quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  On a perusal of the materials placed on record, it  comes  to  be
\nknown  that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the Government has
\nbrought in 82nd Amendment to the Constitution of India thereby incorporating a
\nproviso to Article 335 which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that nothing  in  this  Article  shall  prevent  in  making  of  any
\nprovision  in  favour  of  the  members  of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or  lowering  the
\nstandards  of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class
\nor classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union of
\na State.”\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In pursuance of the said enabling proviso of Article 335  of  the
\nConstitution, the  Government  has  issued  O.M.No.36012\/23\/96-Estt.   ( Res.)
\nVol.II, dated  3.10.2000,  thereby  restoring,  with  immediate  effects,  the
\nrelaxations\/concessions  in  matters  of promotion for candidates belonging to
\nScs\/STs by way of lower qualifying marks, lesser standards of evaluation  that
\nexisted prior  to 22.7.1997.  In other words, the effect of these instructions
\nwould   be   that    the    Department    of    Personnel    and    Training’s
\nO.M.No.36012\/23\/96-Estt.   (Res),  dated  22nd  July, 19 97 became inoperative
\nfrom the date of issue of the said  O.M.    Since  the  impugned  order  dated
\n22.6.1998 was issued by the respondents following the orders of the Government
\nof  India  in  O.M.No.36012\/23\/96Estt  (Res.) dated 22.2.1997 which has become
\ninoperative now, pursuant to the 82nd Amendment of the Constitution of  India,
\nnothing  survives  in the above writ petition and the same becomes liable only
\nto be dismissed as infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
        In result, the above writ petition is dismissed as infructous.\n<\/p>\n
        No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
gs\/ks\/Rao <\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Chairman,
\nLife Insurance Corporation of India,
\nCentral Office,
\nYogakshema,
\nMumbai-400 021.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Senior Divisional Manager,
\nLife Insurance Corporation of India,
\nL.I.C.  Building,
\nAnna Salai, Chennai-2.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Executive Director (Personnel),
\nCentral Office,
\nYogakshema,
\nMumbai-400 021.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 29 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/12\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ WRIT PETITION No.20541 of 1998 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association, rep. by its General Secretary. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLife Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 29 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 29 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-17T23:06:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 29 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T23:06:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2436,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 29 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-17T23:06:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 29 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 29 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 29 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-17T23:06:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 29 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T23:06:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004"},"wordCount":2436,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004","name":"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 29 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-17T23:06:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/life-insurance-corporation-vs-life-insurance-corporation-of-on-29-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Life Insurance Corporation vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 29 December, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204878","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204878"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204878\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}