PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The DIRECTOR/HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECP, ISLAMABAD Ss — 2025 CLD 288 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation
2025 CLD 288 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
Year
2025
Reporter
CLD
Parties
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The DIRECTOR/HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECP, ISLAMABAD Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The DIRECTOR/HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECP, ISLAMABAD Ss. 156 & 167---Takaful Rules, 2012, Rr.10(1)(k), & 20(1)---Provisions of Takaful (insurance), violation of---"Wakala fee"---Scope---Appellant (Insurance Company, being authorized to undertake non-life insurance business and to carry on Window Takaful Operations /WTO), was penalized by the Commission---Argument of the Appellant was that "wakala fee" was not a liability rather it was a "management fee " payable by the participants of PTF to the Appellant---Held, that every payable was a liability and it had to be treated as per legal requirements---In addition, the appellant, as the operator, had to give PTF money in the form of a Qarz-e-Hasna (interest-free loan) in order to satisfy its solvency requirements---However, rather than giving PTF actual money, a set-off transaction was carried out in which the appellant neither provided funds to PTF nor received the "wakala fee" from PTF---By carrying out the transaction in the manner-in-question, the appellant had disregarded the requirements of law---Appellant's interpretation regarding the explanation of R. 10(1)(k) of the Takaful Rules, 2012 was not correct because Qarz-e-Hasna was not a receivable of PTF in the ordinary course of business, rather it was the obligation of the operator to provide such funds on as and when required basis to enable PTF to meet the solvency requirements---Adjustment of the "wakala fee" could not be treated as a grant of real funds required under R. 20(1) of the Takaful Rules, 2012, therefore, the Appellant had undermined the sanctity of the applicable legal framework---Both the legal provisions i.e. Rr. 10(1)(k) & 20(1) of Takaful Rules, 2012 were explicit and there was no ambiguity in this regard---Appellate Bench found no reason to interfere in the merits of the impugned order----Appeal was dismissed.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English