2013 PLP 1470 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD HUZAFA — Petitioner Versus AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. (ALICO) through Chairman/General Manager/Managing Director and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1470 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUZAFA — Petitioner Versus AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. (ALICO) through Chairman/General Manager/Managing Director and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1470 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1470 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1470 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD HUZAFA — Petitioner Versus AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. (ALICO) through Chairman/General Manager/Managing Director and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Zafar Jehangir for Petitioner.
- M. Jamil Khan for Respondents.
- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the aforesaid provision is not applicable to the claimants but even then the learned Insurance Tribunal stayed the proceedings which order of learned Insurance Tribunal is wrong, illegal and without lawful authority.
- 3. Learned counsel for respondent defended the order of learned Insurance Tribunal and contended that the provisions of section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance are clear and unambiguous, hence, the learned Insurance Tribunal has rightly stayed the proceedings in the matter.
- 4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner has got no force because the provisions of section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance are very much clear and unambiguous and no proceedings can be conducted without the sanction of the Commission. The provision of section 162 is reproduced as under:--
Headnotes / Summary
S. 162
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Previous sanction of Securities and Exchange Commission for institution of proceedings under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Scope
Petitioner impugned order of insurance Tribunal whereby proceedings initiated by him were stayed till sanction of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Commission) in terms of S.162 of the Insurance Ordinance 2000
Contention of the petitioner was that S.162 was not applicable to proceedings instituted by claimants
Contention of petitioner had no force as provisions of S.162 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 were clear and unambiguous and no proceedings could be conducted without sanction of the Commission
Impugned order of the Insurance Tribunal was perfectly in accordance with law and could not be interfered with
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIFTAH-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Petitioner Muhammad Huzafa has filed the present writ petition against the judgment and order dated 21-5-2011 of the learned Insurance Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby, the proceedings in the petition of petitioner was stayed till sanction of SECP in terms of section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the aforesaid provision is not applicable to the claimants but even then the learned Insurance Tribunal stayed the proceedings which order of learned Insurance Tribunal is wrong, illegal and without lawful authority.
3. Learned counsel for respondent defended the order of learned Insurance Tribunal and contended that the provisions of section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance are clear and unambiguous, hence, the learned Insurance Tribunal has rightly stayed the proceedings in the matter.
4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner has got no force because the provisions of section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance are very much clear and unambiguous and no proceedings can be conducted without the sanction of the Commission. The provision of section 162 is reproduced as under:-- "Except where proceedings are instituted by the Commission no proceedings under this Ordinance against an Insurer or any Director, Manager or other Officer of an insurer shall be instituted by any person unless he has previous thereto obtained the sanction of the Commission (which shall not unreasonably be withheld) to the institution of such proceedings".
5. So, it is obvious from the above mentioned provision of section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2002 that no proceedings shall be lodged by any person without previous sanction of the Commission (i.e. SECP). Thus, we hold that the impugned order of learned Insurance Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law and legal provision, hence, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. The present writ petition is without any substance, hence, dismissed. KMZ/174/P Petition dismissed.