<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (9) TMI 226 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113195</link>
    <description>An Indian intermediary that collects insurance premium in India and delivers mediclaim certificates in India on behalf of a foreign insurer is carrying on insurance business in India. The statutory scheme treats an insurance agent as one who solicits or procures insurance business, and a foreign insurer as covered where it carries on business in India through a representative or place of business. Prior permissions from other governmental authorities do not displace compliance with the insurance regulatory regime. The regulatory direction requiring registration or a licence was therefore upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 12:51:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 226 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113195</link>
      <description>An Indian intermediary that collects insurance premium in India and delivers mediclaim certificates in India on behalf of a foreign insurer is carrying on insurance business in India. The statutory scheme treats an insurance agent as one who solicits or procures insurance business, and a foreign insurer as covered where it carries on business in India through a representative or place of business. Prior permissions from other governmental authorities do not displace compliance with the insurance regulatory regime. The regulatory direction requiring registration or a licence was therefore upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>