https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282291 Section 44(1) of the Insurance Act, as applied to LIC, was construed to mean that the embargo in the second limb of clause (c) extends across all qualifying categories in the proviso, including clauses (a), (b), (bb) and (bbb). A former agent who violates that embargo by soliciting or procuring insurance business for another person cannot secure renewal commission by relying on an alternative eligibility route, because the commission is a statutory entitlement subject to the proviso's conditions. The Article 14 challenge to the restriction also failed, as the court found the limitation reasonable and not shown to cause hostile discrimination. The claim for renewal commission was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2019 05:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282291 Section 44(1) of the Insurance Act, as applied to LIC, was construed to mean that the embargo in the second limb of clause (c) extends across all qualifying categories in the proviso, including clauses (a), (b), (bb) and (bbb). A former agent who violates that embargo by soliciting or procuring insurance business for another person cannot secure renewal commission by relying on an alternative eligibility route, because the commission is a statutory entitlement subject to the proviso's conditions. The Article 14 challenge to the restriction also failed, as the court found the limitation reasonable and not shown to cause hostile discrimination. The claim for renewal commission was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282291