<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (9) TMI 354 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187274</link>
    <description>A compulsory municipal employees&#039; family benefit scheme requiring monthly contributions and providing payments on retirement or death was treated as life insurance business because the benefits depended on contingencies related to human life. The exclusive privilege of the Life Insurance Corporation therefore applied, and the statutory exemption was confined to schemes already in existence or framed with Central Government approval for Government employees, not a municipal corporation scheme. The State Government could also suspend the scheme under the municipal corporation statute because it was not in conformity with law; illegality alone was sufficient, and the absence of any burden on municipal funds did not limit that power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:30:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 354 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187274</link>
      <description>A compulsory municipal employees&#039; family benefit scheme requiring monthly contributions and providing payments on retirement or death was treated as life insurance business because the benefits depended on contingencies related to human life. The exclusive privilege of the Life Insurance Corporation therefore applied, and the statutory exemption was confined to schemes already in existence or framed with Central Government approval for Government employees, not a municipal corporation scheme. The State Government could also suspend the scheme under the municipal corporation statute because it was not in conformity with law; illegality alone was sufficient, and the absence of any burden on municipal funds did not limit that power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>