SHAHEEN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus DIRECTOR (INSURANCE), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
Failure to meet the requirements of Section 33 Insurance Ordinance (2000x3000 of 2000), Sections 11 (1) (e), 36, 63 and 156 of the minimum solicitation revealed that the insurance company's penalty position The company was plagued with money. 49,328,754 Company, in the circumstances, violated the provisions of Sections 36 and 11 (1) (e) of the Insurance Ordinance, to the Company's 2000 Chief Executives and Directors, which issued a show cause notice Were asked to explain why they were fined. They should not be banned under sections 63 (1) and 156 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000. The company's lawyer acknowledged that the company had failed to meet the minimum solvency requirement, and that the company had been fined a nominal order of Rs 300,000. Each of the eight directors imposed a fine of Rs 100,000, a total fine of Rs 1,100,000, was also directed to take urgent steps to meet their sincerity requirement. s 11 (1) (e) and 36 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000, clearly require that the insurance companies must comply with the minimum solution requirements at all times. Company directors need to work diligently to comply with legal requirements, arguing that Section 36 is not compliant. 11 (1) (e) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 was arbitrary and unnecessary, unacceptable. Based on the proposed business plan, the requirements of the above section cannot be avoided; at least the solvency level requirements for the registered insurance company and the appellant company were one of the basic requirements, ensuring compliance with the authority already in place. Someone in this case
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2015
