In a relief to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Irdai) and its former member P J Joseph, the Supreme Court has said that comments made by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) against him will be expunged. In its order allowing an appeal against SAT, the SC said that the tribunal’s comment that an earlier action of Joseph amounted to aiding corruption is absolutely baseless and was uncalled for.
The appeal relates to a SAT order that used unusually strong language against Irdai and made comments against the member in March 2018. SAT charged Joseph of “virtually aiding and abetting corruption”. Its order relates to an appeal filed by UK-based insurance broker Atkins Special Risks against an order issued by Irdai. Atkins said it had provided reinsurance cover to a private company Jagson International between 2002 and 2012 on a yearly brokerage/commission of 27.5%. Atkins had complained that Jagdish Gupta, chairman of Jagson, has been demanding from Atkins a cut from the commission earned by them.
The SAT in its order said that “reports submitted by the firm confirmed that kickbacks were given to Gupta by Marsh (a reinsurance broking firm) for diverting the reinsurance business”. In its order dated February 16, the SC said that the counsel has submitted that the two emails relied upon by the other side are only related to certain payments being demanded by Gupta. “But by the same it could not be concluded as to whether the demand was for sharing of commission of insurance business or for any other reason. As such, it has been contended that merely on the basis of such documentary evidence, it could not be concluded that any commission was paid to Gupta in violation of Irdai Act and Rules,” the SC said.
The SAT order had said that in such a case, for Irdai to hold that the appellant has not submitted any documentary proof would be totally false. It had gone on to direct Irdai to entrust the matter to a competent officer other than Joseph for passing a fresh order on the complaint filed by the appellant on merits and in accordance with law.
(With inputs from agencies)