Sebi-Irda differ on legal modalities over Ulip issue

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 20 2013 | 12:46 AM IST

Contrary to their earlier stand to move court jointly for settling the issue of control over Ulips, difference have surfaced between insurance regulator Irda and market watchdog Sebi on the legal recourse.

Insurance regulatory development authority (Irda) said that it wanted to seek a legal mandate jointly with Sebi, but the market regulator had reservations.

"Sebi has written a letter to us, that according to their legal counsel, the joint application is not valid in this (Ulip) case under section 90 of Civil Procedure Court," Irda Chairman J Harinarayan told PTI from Hyderabad.

According to sources, a renowned lawyer had suggested the regulators filed a case under section 90, as they were not adversaries fighting each other but only required a legal clarification over jurisdiction.
    
Under section 90 "if any person agrees in writing to state a case for the opinion of the court, then the court shall try and determine the same in the manner prescribed."
    
When asked whether Irda would again approach the government, he said it could be one of the options.
    
However, Sebi Chairman C B Bhave refused to comment on the issue, when contacted.
    
The high voltage dispute between SebiI and Irda arose when the market regulator banned 14 life insurers, including those belonging to SBI and Reliance Anil Ambani Group, from raising any further money from Ulips unless they are registered with the market watchdog.
    
However, Irda asked insurers to ignore the order and continue doing business as usual.
    
After the two conflicting orders, the matter reached the Finance Ministry, where the two watchdogs agreed to jointly seek a legally binding mandate from an "appropriate" court. Till then, status quo ante was restored.
    
Following government directive, Sebi allowed insurers to raise money from existing Ulips, but banned new launches under the scheme.
    
Sebi has been contending that Ulips, which have an investment content, should fall under its purview, while Irda says as Ulips are an insurance product they are the subject matter of the insurance regulator.

 

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 29 2010 | 11:40 AM IST

Next Story