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

The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Ss — 2025 CLD 872 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation
2025 CLD 872 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
Year
2025
Reporter
CLD
Parties
The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Ss
Provisions referred to
S. 166; Insurance Ordinance

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

The UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Ss. 156 & 166---Insurance of public property, matter of---Violations---Penalty, imposition of---Principle of estoppel by acquiescence---Scope---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') penalized Appellant (Insurance Company) on a complaint lodged by National Insurance Company Limited (NICL/Complainant) for under writing insurance policies of vehicles of a public sector entity (PASSCO)---Validity---Estoppel was a legal principle that prevented someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicted what they previously agreed to or said, therefore, this principle was not applicable in the present case because the Appellant had failed to establish acquiescence of NICL with respect to the transaction-in-question---Principle of estoppel by acquiescence was a legal concept that applied when one party acted on an assumption that the other party acquiesced in, therefore, non-issuance of NOC by NICL was sufficient to establish that neither the NICL agreed with the tender bid process initiated by PASSCO nor it had knowledge that PASSCO had issued a tender /bid---Furthermore, failure on the part of public or government functionaries to proceed as per the requirements of law did not allow the Appellant to ignore its responsibility under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000---Appellant being a regulatee under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was required to ensure that the requirements of S. 166 were duly met, however, it failed to proceed diligently as per law---Appeal, filed by Insurance Company, being merit-less was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD

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