9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. But, it is found that barring the fact that the appellant had been given the brokerage contract, there is no other cogent material which would warrant a detailed investigation. The Tribunal has, exfacie, gone wrong in observing that the respondent no.5 had relied on documentary evidence in support of the complaint. The fact finding body has already come to its conclusion on lack of evidence. In the given circumstances, we do not find any useful purpose that would be served in subjecting the appellant or their contract with Jagson to another round of inquiry. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal has observed that the complaint showed that the appellant had relied on documentary evidence in support of the contention that Jagdish Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplaint. 5. The Insurance Regulator i.e., IRDA, represented by Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel has reiterated this stand before us. 6. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that there was no foundation of the complaint made by the first respondent. As a result, there was no scope of interference by the Tribunal with the order of the IRDA. Drawing our attention towards various e-mails referred to by Mr. Murthy, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that none of them related to any illegal demand made by the appellant from Jagson or respondent no.5. Barring a statement of a telephonic conversation of one Mr. Graham Atkins, managing director of the respondent no.1, in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned, they had discharged their onus by raising sufficient suspicion as regards the deal between the respondent no.5 and the appellant. But, we find that barring the fact that the appellant had been given the brokerage contract, there is no other cogent material which would warrant a detailed investigation. The Tribunal has, exfacie, gone wrong in observing that the respondent no.5 had relied on documentary evidence in support of the complaint. We have referred to the nature of the documents but we accept the argument of Mr. Datar that these cannot constitute materials to trigger off an inquiry on the aspect of bribery being indulged into by the appellant to obtain the business from Jagson. 11. The fact finding body has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
