Failure to submit the legal minimum amount of Sections 11 (1) (b), 29, 63 (1) and 157, the Company has no right to maintain its legal deposit level in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 and Section 11 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000 Did not manage. The warning and advice was to continue to meet this shortfall, the company said, for a period of 583 days, the company intentionally violated the provisions of Sections 29 and 11 (1) (b) of the Insurance Ordinance 2000. For which the Commission took action. Instead of imposing penalties, provided under Sections 63 (1) and 157 (1) of the Ordinance Commission, the company was relieved because the company had misinterpreted Section 29 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000, I was reduced to it. The legal depository company took immediate action and upon receipt of the showcase notice, removed the deficit in the legal deposit, stating that the company intended to comply with the law by removing any infringement and violating the stern. I did not see any illegal intent by the company. The warning was issued in case of non-compliance in the future. Strict action will be taken against the company, \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2015
