Dismissed

The Regional Manager (Mktg.), v. M.Kesavaiah

Telangana HC10 Jun 2009WA/759/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Appeal filed by LIC against a single Judge's order allowing a petitioner's claim for commission. The dispute arose from the detachment of an agency from a Development Officer. The court held that without evidence of misconduct, the employee cannot be denied legitimate commission for business conducted by an attached agent.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs at the stage of admission.

The Regional Manager (Mktg.), Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO : 759 of 2009

¶6

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/01/2008 in WP NO : 27937 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.)

¶7

Between:

¶8

1) The Regional Manager (Mktg.), LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

2) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep.by its Managing Director, Yogakshema Jeevan Bhima Marg, Mumbai-400 020.

¶10

3) Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, LIC of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

4) Senior Branch Manager, City Branch II, LIC of India, Hyderabad.

¶12

..... APPELLANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

M.Kesavaiah S/o M.Venkatappa, Hyderabad.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. C.KODANDA RAM

¶18

The Division Bench of this

¶19

Court made the following : Judgment follows 2^nd page

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶22

WRIT APPEAL NO : 759 of 2009.

¶23

J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari)

¶24

The writ appeal is filed against order dated 23-1-2008

¶25

passed in WP.No. 27937 of 1995 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the main writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 02-11-1995 passed by the first

¶26

respondent.

¶27

2. The main writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus

¶28

declaring the order dated 02-11-1995 passed by the first respondent

¶29

as arbitrary, illegal and to set aside the same.

¶30

3. Facts, in brief, are that the writ petitioner while working as a Development Officer in LIC was attached to City Branch-II, Lakdi-ka-

¶31

pul, Hyderabad. While that being so, the name of Smt.P. Durga Bhavani was recommended by the writ petitioner for being appointed

¶32

as an Agent in the circle in which he was operating. The recommendation of the writ petitioner was approved by his Branch Manager and she was appointed as an agent with effect from

¶33

09-11-1991. While things stood thus, the father-in-law of Smt. Durga

¶34

Bhavani, who was also working as an agent in a different circle in City Branch IV, Secunderabad, was terminated on 01-12-1992 and

¶35

he was ceased to be the agent of LIC, as he did not get business target. The first respondent passed an order dated 26-6-1994 detaching the agency of Smt. Durga Bhavani with him, from 09-111991 and thereby disentitling him to claim commission for the business, which Smt. Durga Bhavani fetched. Questioning the same, he filed WP.No.15401 of 1994 and the same was allowed on 27-41995 on the ground that no notice of any kind was issued before passing the said, however, liberty was granted to the respondents to issue notice and proceed with the matter. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice on 14-9-1995 and the writ petitioner submitted his reply on 04-10-1995 and thereafter, the impugned order dated 02-11-1994 was passed stating that the attachment of agency of Smt. Durga Bhavani to the writ petitioner was withdrawn from 0911-1991 and the writ petitioner was denied commission for the business fetched by Smt. Durga Bhavani during her period attached with the writ petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the above writ petition was

¶36

filed.

¶37

4. The learned single Judge after having heard both sides,

¶38

allowed the main writ petition on the ground that under the guise of

¶39

some circular without there being any evidence, the writ petitioner is sought to be denied his legitimate right to claim commission for the business fetched by Smt. Durga Bhavani as an agent attached to him. Challenging the same, the Regional Manager (Marketing), LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad, filed the present writ appeal.

¶40

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellantLIC of India is that when Mr.K. Babu Rao, who worked as agent in a different Development Officer’s Organization in the city branch and whose agency was terminated from 01-12-1992 and since from the

¶41

date of his termination he made business in the account of Smt. Durga Bhavani, who is no other than his daughter-in-law and that itself amounts to misconduct and the same is contrary to the instructions issued by the LIC of India. Therefore, the agency of Smt. Durga Bhavani was detached from the writ petitioner for the misconduct committed by Sri Babu Rao, who is no other than the father-in-law, of Smt. Durga Bhavani. The learned counsel for the appellant-corporation further contended that the business made by Smt. Durga Bhavani, is the business achieved by her father-in-law, K.

¶42

Babu Rao, and thereby the respondent-writ petitioner had permitted the person removed as agent to conduct business through his family member, as such, the respondent-writ petitioner is not entitled to claim commission for the business made by Babu Rao through Smt. Durga Bhavani.

¶43

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-

¶44

corporation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition, because even if Babu Rao diverted the business after 01-12-1992,

¶45

though he was not an agent, it cannot be termed as “misconduct” on the part of the respondent-writ petitioner. Therefore, the respondentwrit petitioner cannot be denied the commission for the business conducted by Smt. Durga Bhavani, as an agent from 09-11-1991 or evenafter 01-12-1992. When there is no evidence on record, the respondent-writ petitioner cannot be denied his legitimate right to claim commission for the business conducted by Smt. Durga Bhavani, as an agent attached to him. We are in agreement with the findings passed by the learned single Judge in allowing the main writ

¶46

petition.

¶47

7. The writ appeal sans merit and the same is accordingly

¶48

dismissed at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances,

¶49

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

_____________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶51

____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶52

10-6-2009 I s L

The Regional Manager (Mktg.), v. M.Kesavaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager (Mktg.), v. M.Kesavaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Goddam Rajamma Vs Yentrapragada Soma Raju

M/s. Sri Laxmi Constructions, rep. by its Vs Vaseem Akram

Syed Mohammed Yousuf, (Died) Vs District Collector

Suresh B. Bapna Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Government of A.P. rep. by The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Vs Ravi Benarjee

M.Balaiah, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer