S. 52-A of the Insurance Act of 1938 applies to an insurer carrying on both life insurance business and general insurance business, and the Government has the power to take over the management of the entire business of the insurer, including its general insurance business.

Judgement

IMAM, J. : These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India question the validity of the notifications issued under S. 52-A of the insurance Act of 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the appointment of an Administrator. In the case of the Tropical Insurance Company Ltd. an Administrator was appointed under notification dated the 14th of July, 1951 and in the case of the Jupiter General Insurance Company Ltd., another Administrator was appointed under notification dated the 10th of July, 1951.

These two insurance companies do insurance business of life insurance and general insurance. Admittedly previous to the appointment of the Administrators the Controller issued notices under S. 52-A to the petitioners and the Finance Ministry of the Central Government sent letters to them pointing out the allegations in the report of the Controller to which they replied.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has candidly stated that he could not raise any constitutional point after the fourth amendment to the Constitution of India. He assumed, therefore, that the provisions of Ss. 52-A to 52-G of the Act were constitutional but he urged that the notifications under S. 52-A and the taking over of the management of the affairs of the companies were invalid inasmuch as they were in excess of the powers conferred by S. 52-A of the Act and that the notifications appointing the Administrators do not fix the period of management as required by law.

He further urged that the provisions of the S. 52-B of the Act had not been complied with and in consequence the management by the Administrator had been expressively prolonged and thus had become unlawful. There has, therefore, been a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Finally it was urged, that there was no authority either under the provisions of the Act or of any other law by which the Government was empowered to take over management of the affairs of the company with respect to its general insurance business. The power of, the Government under S. 52-A was restricted exclusively to life insurance business.

3. As to the first two contentions, they were urged in Petitions Nos. 94 of 1934 and 183 of 1954, but were not allowed to be put forward by this Court as these questions had not been specifically raised in the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and they were accordingly dismissed. The position is similar in this respect so far as the present applications are concerned and consequently it must be held that the petitioners cannot be allowed now to urge grounds which they had not taken in their petitions.

4. There remains, however, to consider the last contention urged on behalf of the petitioners. It was pointed out by Mr. Isaacs that the petitioners are insurance companies doing both life insurance business and general insurance business. He contends that S. 32-A of the Act, on a true interpretation of its provisions, applies only to life insurance business carried on by an insurer and not to the general insurance business done by him. The Administrator appointed under S. 52-A of the Act could therefore take over management only of the life insurance business done by the insurer.

The notifications authorising him to take over the management of the insurance business of the insurer including his general insurance business were thus beyond the powers conferred on Government under S. 32-A of the Act and such taking over of the management of the general insurance business of the petitioners by the Administrator was, therefore, without lawful authority.

5. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the S. 32-A. Sub-s. (1). of that section states:

"If at any time the Controller has reason to believe that an insurer carrying on life insurance business is acting in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the interests of holders of life policies, he may, after giving such opportunity