MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus M/S ATKINS SPECIAL RISKS LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 9 S.C.R. 1301 · Decided: 24-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1301
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 1301 : 2023 INSC 293
1301
MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS  PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
M/S ATKINS SPECIAL RISKS LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s).4678-4681 of 2018)
MARCH 24, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Insurance Act, 1938: s.41(1) – Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2013
– Clause 37(1) – Complaint by the first respondent-insurance
broker alleging adoption of illegal means by appellant in
obtaining business of international reinsurance cover of J firm,
it paid bribe to Chairman of the J firm to obtain brokerage
contract, thus the appellant violated s.41(1) of the Act of 1938
and Clause 37(1) of the 2013 Regulations – Basis of the complaint
was certain emails by which the Chirman allegedly made demands
for illegal gratification in exchange of handing over the
brokerage contract to the appellant as also a telephonic
conversation against the Chaiman informing the respondent no.
1 about demand of bribe from the appellant – Dismissed by the
Regulatory Authority-IRDA – Tribunal set aside the decision of
the IRDAI – Held: Order of the tribunal is in the nature of a
remand order which in effect only directed a fresh inquiry and
since the fact finding body has already come to its conclusion
on lack of evidence, no useful purpose would be served in
subjecting the appellant or their contract with J to another round
of inquiry – Barring the fact that the appellant had been given
the brokerage contract, no other cogent material showing any
illegality being committed by the appellant in obtaining the
contract from J – Order of the tribunal set aside – Order of the
IRDA is sustained – Insurance Law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.4678-
4681 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2018 and 21.03.2018
of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Misc. Application
No.02 of 2018 and IRDA Appeal No.02 of 2018.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Jain, Sr. Advs., Indranil
Deshmukh, Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Isha Malik, Ms. Saloni Kapadia,
Ms. Niharika Shukla, M/s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advs. for
the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv., T. Srinivasa Murthy, Senthil Jagadeesan,
Ms. Shruti Iyer, Ms. Nishita Jagetia, M/s Bhave and Associates,
Harihar Bhave, Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
The appellant before us is an Insurance and Re-insurance
Brokerage firm questioning the legality of an order passed by the
Securities Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”), Mumbai on 16th March
2018. By that order, the Tribunal has set aside a decision of the
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (“IRDA”)
dismissing a complaint made by the first respondent alleging adoption
of illegal means by the appellant in obtaining business of international
re-insurance cover  of    another    firm,  Jagson International Limited
(“Jagson”)  on  yearly  brokerage/commission. The  first  respondent
had  such  business  with  Jagson  for  the  years between 2002-2012.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the IRDA,
in effect, to revisit the complaint made by the respondent  no.1  and
pass a fresh order. Substance of the complaint made by the first
respondent, also an Insurance and Re-insurance Brokerage entity
was that the appellant had paid bribe to one Mr. Jagdish Gupta
(“respondent no.5”), the Chairman of Jagson for obtaining the
brokerage contract. Jagson is involved in the business of oil exploration
and such insurance is mainly with regard to its exploration equipments.
3. The basis of complaint of the first respondent was certain
emails referred to by the first respondent by which the respondent
no.5 allegedly had made demand for illegal gratification in exchange
of handing over the brokerage contract to the appellant. There is
also allegation against the respondent no.5 of informing the respondent
no.1, through telephonic conversation, about demand of bribe from
the appellant. We find from pleadings that there was increase in the
number and size of rigs of Jagson subsequent to the year 2012, which
required enhanced coverage. Contention of the respondent
represented by Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel is that the
appellant has used an India based direct insurance broker to pay
money to respondent no.5, as part of the appellant’s commission to
India. The case of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.