Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The AT upheld the regulatory violation by the insurer for collecting advance renewal premiums without proper documented consent, in contravention of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002. The tribunal rejected the insurer's arguments regarding corporate agent practices and regulatory compliance. The penalty of Rs. 1 crore was deemed proportionate, with the appeal partially allowed. The final order mandated the insurer to refund interest to policyholders limited to the actual advance premium received, with an additional 2% penal interest, thereby affirming regulatory oversight and policyholder protection principles.
The AT upheld the regulatory violation by the insurer for collecting advance renewal premiums without proper documented consent, in contravention of IRDA (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002. The tribunal rejected the insurer's arguments regarding corporate agent practices and regulatory compliance. The penalty of Rs. 1 crore was deemed proportionate, with the appeal partially allowed. The final order mandated the insurer to refund interest to policyholders limited to the actual advance premium received, with an additional 2% penal interest, thereby affirming regulatory oversight and policyholder protection principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.