Sections 11 (1) (c), 36, 63 (1) and 156 Securities and Exchange Commission (Insurance) Rules, 2002, R13 (1) (b) exceed the obligations to meet the minimum solvency requirements Acceptable Assets Company, in the present case, is no more than an asset acceptable to meet the minimum solvency requirements set by R13 (1) (b) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Insurance) Rules 2002. And violated its Article 36 provision. The insurance ordinance, 2000 company, appeared to be insolvent as of December 31, 2012, which was not in compliance with section 11 of the ordinance default of section 36, read with section 11 (1) (c) of the insurance ordinance 2000, provided under penalty. Section 63 (1) and Section 156 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 may be levied on the Company Securities and Exchange Commission, instead of imposing fines, adopting a small theory, awarded a fine due to the facts. (A) That company was solvent until the end of 2011, and at least at all times prior to the notice, the requirement was solicited. (B) that the management of the company has adopted and acted to meet the minimum solution requirement as prescribed under the rules. And the laws, regulations and regulations applicable in this regard should be followed in the future. (c) that the Company also made measures to meet the shortfall by injecting new equity. its r \ n \ r \ nto invest in the properties and related companies to bring the solvency position of the company as required by law.
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2014
