INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 1999

Facts: The first Petitioner is a company registered in India incorporated under the laws of Netherlands. The first Petitioner for the period from 2003 till 18th August, 2010 was a joint venture amongst the second Petitioner which held 74% of the issued capital. Since the earlier license granted to the first Petitioner was to expire in 2009, the first Petitioner applied, on 16th February, 2009, for the renewal of their composite broking license. At the time of submitting the renewal application, a show cause notice was issued to the first Petitioner for cancellation of the composite broking license of the first Petitioner. It was challenged by the Petitioners. The first Respondent, IRDA, established under Section 3(1) of the IRDA Act is the authority within the meaning of the IRDA Regulations. The IRDA consists of a Chairman and not more than 5 whole time members and not more than 4 part time members. The second and third Respondents are permanent members (life and non life) of the first Respondent.

Held: In view of the Act, while deciding the renewal application afresh, it will be open to the authority to consider any other relevant material by which it may not be possible to renew the license such as any legal impediments in this behalf. The authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The earlier Committee which took the decision now may take a fresh decision on the renewal application in accordance with law. It is clarified that if there is any other ground available with the authority, the same may also be considered provided the same should be brought to the notice of the Petitioners. It is, however, clarified that since they have found that nondisclosure of the dispute between Bhaichand and ECGC was not a relevant aspect, the same may not be taken into consideration while deciding the renewal application afresh.

Facts: The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the decision taken in the board meeting by which the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020 was approved by the Board. By the said Regulations, the earlier regulations of 2015 are sought to be amended. The challenges raised by the Petitioner are multi-fold. Broadly, the Petitioner's stand is that the amendments proposed are arbitrary, unjust and illegal. The prayer is that the decision of the Board Meeting held on 13th August, 2020 be quashed and the Regulations not be given effect to.

Held: The Court considering the fact that the regulations which are sought to be challenged are still in a draft form, and the stand of the IRDAI that the same would not be given effect to until they are notified and passed by Parliament, in the opinion of this Court, the challenge is premature. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as premature, leaving open the rights of the Petitioner to avail its remedies in accordance with law once the regulations are duly notified and placed before the Parliament.

Facts: the subject matter of the challenge is to the order, dated 15.4.2011 issued by the first Respondent, i.e., Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (for short IRDA) constituted under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. By the impugned order, the IRDA had fixed the Motor Insurance Premium Rates for third party liability only cover. The Petitioners in all these writ petitions were either associations of bus operators, lorry operators, trade union of Auto rickshaw drivers and associations of matriculation schools, self finance colleges and deemed universities.

Held: The Court held that even if the parameters shown by the Supreme Court are applied, the Petitioners have not made out any case. The impugned order is based upon rational classification and subject to sound reasoning and evolved after public consultation with the stake holders. And thus, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. The Petitioners are given eight weeks time to pay the balance of the premium amounts to the respective insurers without fail. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.