| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3728 2025 SLD 3728 = 2025 CLD 288 |
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
Appeal No.19 of 2022, decided on 1st January, 2025.
Before Akif Saeed, Chairman/Commissioner and Abdul Rehman Warraich, Commissioner
Ali Ibrahim for Appellant. Shafiq-ur-Rehman, Additional Joint Director, Adjudication-I, SECP for
Respondent.
Appeal No.19 of 2022, decided on 1st January, 2025.
Before Akif Saeed, Chairman/Commissioner and Abdul Rehman Warraich, Commissioner
Ali Ibrahim for Appellant. Shafiq-ur-Rehman, Additional Joint Director, Adjudication-I, SECP for
Respondent.
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED---Appellant
VERSUS
The DIRECTOR/HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECP, ISLAMABAD---Respondent
Law: Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Section: XXXIX,156,167
Law: Takaful Rules, 2012
Section: 10(1)(k),12,20(1)
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: X,24A
(a) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)-------S. 156---SRO No. 1545(I)/2019 dated December 6, 2019---Takaful Rules, 2012, Rr. 10(1)(k) & 20(1)---Different persons/entities of Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Commission)---Delegation of powers---Objection raised by the appellant (Insurance Company, being authorized to undertake non-life insurance business and to carry on Window Takaful Operations /WTO), was that the Show-Cause Notice was controversial because powers under S. 156 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, had been delegated to different persons (Commissioner Insurance, HOD, Adjudication and Wing Head Adjudication-I) which tantamount to sub-delegation of powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Commission)---Validity---Under the SRO No. 1545(I)/2019 dated December 6, 2019 ('the SRO-in-question'), powers had been delegated to the different administered legislations (persons) of the Commission (the Commissioners, Heads of Departments and Wing Heads)---Thus, the appellant's objection was misconceived as S. 156 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was a penal clause that was delegated to different persons to adjudicate the matters involving violations of the substantive provisions of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000---Appellate Bench found no reason to interfere in the merits of the impugned order----Appeal was dismissed.(b) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)-------S. 24-A---Takaful Rules, 2012, Rr. 10(1)(k) & 20(1)---Non-speaking order --Scope---Argument of the appellant (Insurance Company), being authorized to undertake life insurance business and to carry on Window Takaful Operations /WTO) was that the Impugned Order was a non-speaking order---Validity---Rules 10(1)(k) and 20(1) of Takaful Rules were explicit and violations of said Rules were adequately explained by the Respondent / Commission---Thus, plea of the appellant was without any substance---Appellate Bench found no reason to interfere in the merits of the impugned order----Appeal was dismissed.(c) Takaful Rules, 2012-------R.12---Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 156 & 167---Provisions of…