Insufficient evidence for bribery allegation bars remand for fresh inquiry; regulator's rejection of the complaint was restored.

A remand for further inquiry was unjustified where the complaint alleging illegal gratification was unsupported by cogent material and rested mainly on suspicion. The Court noted that the regulator had already found no proof of bribery or illegal payment, and that the Tribunal had no basis to interfere with that factual finding. On the materials placed before it, there was no cause to require another round of inquiry, so the regulator's rejection of the complaint was restored and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the IRDA's rejection of the complaint and directing a fresh inquiry on allegations of illegal gratification in obtaining the brokerage contract.

Analysis: The dispute centred on whether the materials placed before the regulator were sufficient to warrant reopening the complaint. The Court noted that jurisdictional objections to the IRDA's power to act were not examined further, but accepted that the regulator's authority was wide. On the merits, however, the available material did not disclose cogent evidence of bribery or illegal payment. The complaint rested largely on suspicion and unsupported allegations, and the fact-finding authority had already concluded that no proof had been produced. In those circumstances, there was no basis for the Tribunal to interfere with the regulator's order or to require another round of inquiry.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's remand was unjustified and the challenge to the IRDA's order failed.

Final Conclusion: The regulatory order rejecting the complaint was restored, and no further inquiry was warranted on the materials placed before the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand for further inquiry cannot be sustained where the complaint is unsupported by cogent material and the fact-finding authority has already recorded a lack of evidence.

---